Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is 'unmasking?' How intelligence agencies treat U.S. citizens
    Gregory Korte , USA TODAY 2:14 p.m. ET April 4, 2017

    WASHINGTON — The investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election — and President Trump's counterattack against surveillance and leaking — has brought a new term into the American political lexicon.

    "Unmasking."

    Until now, the process for revealing information about U.S. citizens in intelligence reports was almost complete obscure outside of the intelligence community.

    But the issue has taken on new importance since House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes alleged that the Obama administration may have improperly identified Trump transition officials in classified reports he had access to — reports that later turned out to be provided to him by the Trump White House.

    Here's what we know about the hows and whys of unmasking:

    'Minimization' procedures

    When U.S. spy agencies eavesdrop on terrorists or foreign agents, they often come across information about U.S. citizens who are not the target of their investigation. This "incidental collection" is not illegal or improper, but specially trained intelligence officers are required to go through an established procedure to protect the privacy of U.S. persons, known as "minimization."

    (U.S. persons are defined as U.S. citizens and permanent residents, no matter where they are in the world.)

    If the information has no intelligence value, it's supposed to be immediately destroyed. But even if it might be relevant, identifying information about that person will be excluded in intelligence reports that are distributed throughout the intelligence community, including those that go to the White House. Instead, the reports will refer only to "U.S. Person One," "U.S. Person Two," etc.

    Exceptions to the rule

    But the intelligence community's policies on minimization are not absolute, and there are several exceptions. The National Security Agency, for example, will contain the names of U.S. persons in intelligence reports when:

    ► The information is available publicly, meaning "information that a member of the public could obtain on request, by research in public sources, or by casual observation."

    ► "The identity of the United States person is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance, e.g., the identity of a senior official in the Executive Branch."

    ► The intelligence indicates that the U.S. person may be an agent of a foreign power."

    Who can 'unmask?'

    If a national security official who receives an intelligence report feels like he or she needs to know the identity of a U.S. person in an intelligence report, that official can make a request to "unmask."

    The procedures for doing so are less well understood than the minimization process, but about 20 officials at the National Security Agency have the authority to approve an unmasking, NSA Director Michael Rogers told the House Intelligence Committee last month.

    Especially sensitive requests would come to his attention personally. "I'm the senior-most of the 20 individuals. Requests will be pushed to my level, say 'Hey, sir, we just want to make sure that you're comfortable with this,'" he said.

    Rogers said those officials all have specific training. "There are specific controls put in place in terms of our ability to disseminate information out of the databases associated with U.S. persons," he said.

    Other intelligence agencies — including the CIA, FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center — have their own procedures for minimization and unmasking.

    Susan Rice's unmasking requests

    In an interview with MSNBC Tuesday, Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied making requests to unmask the names of Trump associates for political purposes. She described the process as routine, but declined to say specifically how often she made requests or for what purposes.

    "There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided, just a U.S. person," she said. "And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information, as to who the U.S. official was.

    "So when that occurred, what I would do, or what any official would do, is to ask their briefer whether the intelligence community would go through its process — and there's a long-standing, established process — to decide whether that information as to who the identity of the U.S. person was could be provided to me. So they'd take that question back, they'd put it through a process, and the intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me."

    'Unmasking' as protection

    Rice gave a hypothetical example of foreign agents attempting to buy bomb-making materials from a U.S. citizen. "Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information."

    But former CIA director John McLaughlin says the debate over unmasking has often ignored more benign reasons for identifying citizens whose name come up in foreign intelligence.

    "Sometimes you unmask the name in order to protect an American citizen," McLaughlin told MSNBC Tuesday. He used the hypothetical example of a senator who needs to know that the foreign official he's planning to meet with is actually a spy. "You need to know who you were talking to, just for your protection and information."

    Unmasking is not leaking

    When the name of a U.S. person is unmasked, that information is provided only to the intelligence official who requested that unmasking, Rice said Tuesday. "There's no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking," she said.

    Of course, the recipient of unmasked information could then illegally disclose it through a leak.

    Rice denied leaking. "I leaked nothing to nobody, and never had and never would," she said.
    I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it on

    Comment


    • froot: This is exactly what you said in post 18913

      Oh yeah Prince and DeVos are knee deep in it. It is no coincidence that one of the servers listed in that alleged FISA warrant was a Spectrum Health server.
      Did you just make that up? Or do you have a link? I, too, donate to Spectrum and I'd like some information as to what is going on. And how do you know what is on a FISA warrant?

      Comment


      • So the implication that you put there is that you think the people in Grand Rapids are inherently better than the people in Detroit.
        No, I didn't say anything about "inherently better".

        What I said was that there is a substantial difference in the values of the two areas of the State. That is generally true, and I point to actual reality to support my case.

        GR used private money to try to replace their vanishing manufacturing base. Detroit sucked money from the west side for 25 years, from the federal government for more years than that, in order to try to maintain auto production as the economic base.

        One city looked forward, one city back.

        One city used mostly private funding, one did not.

        One city was run by both Republicans and Democrats with good moral character; one had only machine Democrats, some of questionable character.

        One city paid its obligations, one did not.

        But you get the point. Look at the scoreboard.

        Comment


        • [ame]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/376334423069032448[/ame]

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Da Geezer View Post
            froot: This is exactly what you said in post 18913



            Did you just make that up? Or do you have a link? I, too, donate to Spectrum and I'd like some information as to what is going on. And how do you know what is on a FISA warrant?
            Do some searching, it's there. The operative word is alleged FISA, nobody knows if the FISA warrant was granted. CNN is reporting that the FBI is investigating the link between the Trump server, the Alfa server and the Spectrum server. But they have not reported a FISA warrant. Other people have. I'm certainly not making it up, I'm surprised you haven't heard of it you are so up on this wiretapping claim Trump made. This is central to the claim.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
              Whether she improperly unmasked names should be investigated. There's nothing in the article that suggests she broke the law, but it should be checked out.

              As for Trump hitting the nail on the head...LMAO. He said Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. Period. He then ordered his entire admin to find something, ANYTHING, he could glom onto to claim that, once again, he's a brilliant, brilliant man.

              I know, I know...never take his words at face value...listen to what they "mean"...and his supporters will twist them to show he's always, always right.

              I'll point out again that if any of Rice's unmasking was NSA intel, then Mike Rogers would've known about it too. And he's currently working for Trump. So why didn't Trump just ask him?

              seems like everybody knew about it in obamas administration

              DJT doesn't have to look very hard does he

              they were using everything in their power to try to find something they could use on DJT

              guess she told everybody but Obama right?

              Comment


              • They clearly have a lot. Which raise the question of why they didn't use it. Maybe is wasn't so hard to find. Maybe the whole thing was the intelligence community doing their jobs - getting the information and handing it over to leadership.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Whitley View Post
                  So the implication that you put there is that you think the people in Grand Rapids are inherently better than the people in Detroit.
                  That part of the state produced both Betsy DeVos AND Erik Prince! His think is so toxic he has to change the company name every few years. No matter how much Geezer raises the average for the western half of the state there's very little that the eastern half can do to be more evil. Good god what awful humans those are.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by crashcourse View Post
                    seems like everybody knew about it in obamas administration

                    DJT doesn't have to look very hard does he

                    they were using everything in their power to try to find something they could use on DJT

                    guess she told everybody but Obama right?

                    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/su...volving-trump/
                    If she is called to testify before Congress, I'll guess we'll find out

                    BTW, who is this Joseph DiDegenova and how exactly does he know about these spreadsheets and all these details about what Rice did? He seems like a frequent guest on right-wing talk radio. He's also the guy who did the 'independent investigation" into Bill Clinton's passport in 1992 that was supposed to reveal all sorts of terrible secrets. Hatred of the Clintons will only take you so far. But hey...he was a US attorney for 4 years in the early 80's...means he's an expert on what Susan Rice did. And whatever he knows he got through sources he does not name...so another example of you and Geezer being okay with anonymous sources, so long as they say something you like, right?

                    Right-wing media are reporting discredited Republican lawyer Joseph diGenova's baseless claim that Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed "numerous federal crimes" with her private email use, failing to note that Clinton is not the target of the FBI's investigation and that the probe is not criminal in nature.


                    And I know Media Matters is a hack establishment Dem website...but they have a ton of transcripts from this DiGenova guy on the whole gamut of Conservative talk shows.
                    Last edited by Dr. Strangelove; April 4, 2017, 06:29 PM.

                    Comment


                    • That part of the state produced both Betsy DeVos AND Erik Prince! His think is so toxic he has to change the company name every few years. No matter how much Geezer raises the average for the western half of the state there's very little that the eastern half can do to be more evil. Good god what awful humans those are.
                      Heh! I believe I've posted my opinion of Erik Prince before.

                      When the marriage happened (Dick De Vos and Betsy Prince), many of us believed it should have had its own coverage in the WSJ under "Mergers and Acquisitions".
                      Last edited by Da Geezer; April 4, 2017, 06:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Official: North Korea just tested a ballistic missile

                        Ahead of the first meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, North Korea fired a ballistic missile off the coast of the Korean Peninsula, US and South Korean officials said.

                        Comment


                        • Strange:
                          And whatever he knows he got through sources he does not name...so another example of you and Geezer being okay with anonymous sources, so long as they say something you like, right?
                          No. Not right. Read my post. I simply said that the DC named their sources.

                          But as long as we are answering questions, Strange, how about my question to you that I have been asking for a week now.

                          What was the purpose of opening up the NSA surveillance, presumably under FISA warrant #12333, to 16 other intelligence agencies during the last two weeks of the Obama Administration?

                          As you correctly pointed out, political use of the NSA surveillance is criminal. Why was the policy changed to allow raw NSA data under a blanket warrant to be spread throughout the intelligence community, including those agencies concerned only with domestic surveillance? Why did a policy that had been in place since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Act warrant a change two weeks before Trump's inauguration?

                          Strange, it could only have been to spread whatever intel was obtained in order to damage the incoming administration. The reason you have avoided the question is that the question answers itself. That, sir, is the political use of "foreign" intelligence. And that is a crime.

                          The core of Watergate was Nixon spying on domestic political opposition and then using the government to try to cover it up.

                          Comment


                          • Official: North Korea just tested a ballistic missile
                            And Xi arrives here on Thursday. I'll bet the ChiComs are pissed.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Da Geezer View Post
                              Strange:


                              No. Not right. Read my post. I simply said that the DC named their sources.

                              But as long as we are answering questions, Strange, how about my question to you that I have been asking for a week now.

                              What was the purpose of opening up the NSA surveillance, presumably under FISA warrant #12333, to 16 other intelligence agencies during the last two weeks of the Obama Administration?

                              As you correctly pointed out, political use of the NSA surveillance is criminal. Why was the policy changed to allow raw NSA data under a blanket warrant to be spread throughout the intelligence community, including those agencies concerned only with domestic surveillance? Why did a policy that had been in place since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Act warrant a change two weeks before Trump's inauguration?

                              Strange, it could only have been to spread whatever intel was obtained in order to damage the incoming administration. The reason you have avoided the question is that the question answers itself. That, sir, is the political use of "foreign" intelligence. And that is a crime.

                              The core of Watergate was Nixon spying on domestic political opposition and then using the government to try to cover it up.
                              The Daily Caller named its source as Joseph DiGenova. The other two people named in the piece, both conservatives, were citied only for their opinion. I described this DiGenova as someone who's been out of the government since the early 90's and was last a US Attorney in the early 80's. So where is he getting HIS information.

                              Whoever gave DiGenova this info is unnamed. He would have no first hand knowledge of anything going on in the Obama years. Hence, an unnamed source. Correct? Right?

                              As for the Obama administration 'spreading information" i believe they believed that Russia indeed hacked the DNC and sought to spread evidence as much as they could. .Likely because they felt (with great justification) that the incoming administration would destroy or bury all the info they had gathered.

                              There's virtually no one with any credibility that believes Russia wasn't involved in the DNC hack and did not prefer Trump to Clinton. Why this is the case is debatable. It doesn't have to be that Trump was in league with Putin. He clearly is more favorable to striking up an alliance with Putin than any other mainstream US politician of the past 20 years. It could also be that Putin knew he'd be a hot mess as a President, spoke often of reducing America's role in the world, and Putin saw an opportunity for Russia to step into the vacuum. For Putin is forever seeking foreign triumphs to make the domestic audience forget their lives are shit.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Da Geezer View Post
                                And Xi arrives here on Thursday. I'll bet the ChiComs are pissed.
                                China has to be worried at some point that North Korea is no longer much worried about what Beijing thinks

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X