hum, i actually assisted a bit on ralph’s 2000 campaign... still have my green laminated volunteer pass for one of his engagements. anything to pass that 5% threshold for federal matching campaign funds, but at least it didn’t mess up PA’s vote IIRC. those were some heady jibjab days!
One document that has been leaked states that XKeyscore has the capabilities to read the content of emails. The only requirements that an NSA employee needs to read the content of the emails of the person under scrutiny after providing a selector is to meet the requirements of the 51% standard. Also, Snowden has stated that NSA employees are hardly brought to accountability for their search entries, and even when they are, it's unlikely the employee faces any drawback.
The Guardian published a marketing/training document where every example was about metadata and about foreign targets. Also it was from 2008 before the FISA amendments acts.
In the article itself they mixed that in with other screenshots of other systems.
My guess is the way it works, is you search the metadata in XKEYSCORE and if you get hits you can analyze and then if need to go futher you need proceed to other systems. However, you need access and permissions to those other systems. If you have rights to basic XKEYSCORE searches, does not give you access to higher database or databases where content is stored.
Analysts search metadata even when they are doing 100% foreign intelligence. Again the reason is BIG DATA, you do the metadata searches to narrow down the pile of stuff to look at. If XKEYSCORE searched through content, it would take far too long. A typical signals analyst's job is something like, we caught this guy in Afghanistan planting an IED, here's the numbers in his cell phone, find his network. To get back timely information, you don't want to be overwhelmed, so at collection, full content is sent to another data and, for XKEYSCORE the metadata is extracted and fed into a database of metadata tables and these tables are what XKEYSCORE searches.
longhornfan, just out of curiosity, what would your reply be to any or all of this reply to a post of yours? both posts also quoted below for your convenience:
Originally Posted by longhornfan1234
Bush was a National guard, graduated from Yale, ran an oil business, and he invested $600,000 to gain a very small share of the Rangers then convinced the citizens of Arlington, TX to invest in a new Stadium for the team. After the Stadium was built Bush and his co investors sold the team netting Bush a 15+ million dollar profit. He was a successful businessman. Barry was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER.
Originally Posted by KevinNYC
It's always hard to tell what Longhorn believes for real and what is just to troll Democrats. But ever time, I underestimate the kookiness of modern Republican movement, something stupid like this.
I do think that Longhorn like to tell himself convenient fictions though like this list, most of which are not positives for Bush.
Bush was a National guard
True. During Vietnam. And he joined to avoid the draft. And he got in because his Dad was a powerful politician
graduated from Yale,
Also True. As had many of his forefathers all the way back to 1844. As had his grandfather, who not only was a US Senator from CT, the state where Yale is, he also was the head of Yale fundraising committee for 12 years. Also Bush went on to Havard Business school. However, if this counts it Bush's favor it should also count for Obama who graduated from Columbia and then Harvard Law.
ran an oil business,
True, an oilwhich he was able to start because he was well connected and investors wanted to get close to his politically powerful family and he ran the company very poorly
and he invested $600,000 to gain a very small share of the Rangers then convinced the citizens of Arlington, TX to invest in a new Stadium for the team. After the Stadium was built Bush and his co investors sold the team netting Bush a 15+ million dollar profit.
Change invest to "pay for"
True, I think most folks could see this is not a positive even on its face, but for longhorn's sake I'll spell it out for him. Bush enriched himself at the taxpayer's expense and got to pretend he ran the Texas Rangers and thus position himself for political office. He got a big price despite his small investment because he was the son of the President of the United States at the time and the other businessmen were renting his name.
He was a successful businessman.
This is not true.
Barry was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER.
Why you think this should be held against is the question? If you wanted to say he was positioning himself for running for political office, that would be true.
But why you would think offering literacy programs, job-training programs, college prep programs in poor neighborhoods is something so worthy of ridicule. The place he worked was set up by Catholic parishes in areas where several factories had just closed. That's right it was a faith-based organization. I seem to remember another politician making a big deal about them....what his name?
So what's so wrong with being a community organizer? Is it because it helps poor people? Is it because the poor people are black? How many threads does longhorn make about problems in the black community? So why is Obama's early job trying to address some of these problems a bad thing?
Of course, after being a community organizer, Obama went to Harvard Law where we voted editor of the Havard Law review and then became it's president where he managed 80 editors, it's kind of a big deal.
He then wrote a well-regarded memoir and taught law at University of Chicago for 12 years and serve in the state senate of Illinois for 12 of them.
I've been called an Obama-lover on here, but that's not actually what motivates me.....I'm too old to feel that way towards any politician....I remember when Kurt Cobain died....I was too old and jaded for it to really mess me up, it made me laugh, because dying at 27 is such a rock star cliche.
What motivates me is tendentious or dishonest political arguments against Democrats....like Al Gore claimed he invented the internet. The only way Obama's background is is if you distort it. The right wing tried to claim that Obama couldn't have written his book, it's too good. It's only his speechwriters who make Obama good. It's ridiculous, Obama is an editor and a writer and a damn good one.
If you switched Bush's and Obama's careers, you know longhorn would be citing all the arguments, I made above.
It's also pretty hiliarious to not mention Bush's family when discussing why he became the president.
1. What NSA does with the metadata it collects on Americans is orders of magnitude less intrusive that what other government agencies do with what they collect, than what companies do with what we give them voluntarily and without our knowledge, or what political campaigns profess to know about you by buying data you did not intend for them to see.
2. Many other government agencies do much more to actively degrade American liberty, and they do so without nearly the degree of oversight that NSA subjects itself to internally and externally.
3. Signals intelligence collection is hard to understand, and many, many news outlets, including some of the ones that revealed the documents, came to conclusions that have not stood the test of even a short period of time.
4. The reason why Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall know so much about NSA activities is not because of a whistle-blower. It is because of NSA's evolving self-disclosure.
5. NSA collects foreign intelligence. Its consumers expect to receive such intelligence.