President Biden Revokes Executive Branch Rules Against Spying on American Citizens

That the move would help Biden further politicize the FBI and US intelligence agencies and allow the administration to plow full speed into prosecuting its critics and personal enemies lists.
Biden partially revoked Presidential Policy Directive 28 – a directive governing how federal agencies used signals intelligence to spy on citizens. Signals intelligence includes phone calls, text messages, emails, and internet use.

https://www.oann.com/newsroom/biden-quietly-expands-government-spying-on-american-citizens/
https://trendingpolitics.com/presid...les-against-spying-on-american-citizens-knab/
https://ussanews.com/2022/10/07/bre...ch-rules-against-spying-on-american-citizens/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...nited-states-signals-intelligence-activities/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...vocation-of-presidential-policy-directive-28/

 

The original rule, established under President Obama, restricted the government from arbitrarily spying on US citizens. If the government were to spy on US citizens, the government was required to apply through the courts for permission. Policy Directive 28 was essentially a way to keep government minimally accountable as it played the role of Big Brother government listening in.

Biden essentially lifted these restrictions Friday – including revoking a provision that would prevent the government from targeting its political enemies and critics:

 

Where is the MSM on this issue?

 

I find a lot of sites like this aren’t true all the time. I find it hard to believe Biden would revoke anything of obamas

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...nited-states-signals-intelligence-activities/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...vocation-of-presidential-policy-directive-28/

I don't know how white house statements would be wrong... from a .gov site... now from CNN fake news maybe...

 

That’s very interesting. It also makes one wonder why during an election year.

 

The government is now allowed to spy on Americans for broadly defined reasons including understanding “public health risks,” “political instability,” and the “threat” of climate change.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...assess-political-instability-climate-threats/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...nited-states-signals-intelligence-activities/
https://drrichswier.com/2022/10/14/...on-americans-to-assess-political-instability/

 

I noticed lefties are super quiet in threads like these. I guess its better to pretend it isn't happening?

 

Awful quiet from the lefties. Tyranny anyone?

 

Always need to remember that what people are and what they say they are has no relationship in the absence of honor.

Regardless of what is claimed, what you do- IS who you are.

 

I blame the Patriot act.

It reads to my like you have it backwards though. From my understanding shall not means he isn't allowed to collect it for the purposes of suppressing criticism or decent, but at the same time signals communication seems to only apply to the military. So a nothing burger imo.

 

First of all, lets parse the data sources that your are giving that are supporting this OP

OAN:



Trending Politics:



USSA News



And then, to finish it off, nothing in the order is about spying on American citizens. It is about "new limitations on U.S. surveillance programs and creates a new redress mechanism for EU residents". In addition, “The Administration’s new Executive Order is a meaningful improvement over the prior privacy framework which has operated to the exclusion of non-U.S. persons.

As such, your OP is all FAKE NEWS!!!!

 

Your title is misleading in that you said "rules" He modified one part of one rule.
There still appear to be significant restrictions as to how this is used:

"Signals intelligence activities shall be authorized by statute or by Executive Order, proclamation, or other Presidential directive and undertaken in accordance with the Constitution and with applicable statutes and Executive Orders, proclamations, and other Presidential directives.

(ii) Signals intelligence activities shall be subject to appropriate safeguards, which shall ensure that privacy and civil liberties are integral considerations in the planning and implementation of such activities so that:

(A) signals intelligence activities shall be conducted only following a determination, based on a reasonable assessment of all relevant factors, that the activities are necessary to advance a validated intelligence priority, although signals intelligence does not have to be the sole means available or used for advancing aspects of the validated intelligence priority; and

(B) signals intelligence activities shall be conducted only to the extent and in a manner that is proportionate to the validated intelligence priority for which they have been authorized, with the aim of achieving a proper balance between the importance of the validated intelligence priority being advanced and the impact on the privacy and civil liberties of all persons, regardless of their nationality or wherever they might reside.

(iii) Signals intelligence activities shall be subjected to rigorous oversight in order to ensure that they comport with the principles identified above."

 

So, when you push a criminal into a corner, they lash out. This is Biden lashing out. The authoritarian wing of the democratic party is in full attack mode. When government excludes itself from having to follow the law, the public have to respond by using elections to remove these lawless feckless dictators.

 

If the old man had lost it then yea. This isn't Russia, nothings stopping you from voting for someone else.

 

Noooooooooo...... Your fact checking site is fake news

Media Bias Fact Check Literally is a written opinion site by a man with a ""Communications Degree in college"" Dave Van Zandt

The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest

Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/

Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).
We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?
https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html

Media Bias Fact Check Is a Major SCAM to Silence the Right
https://www.independentsentinel.com/media-bias-fact-checking-scam-silence-right/

Don't trust Fact checkers, especially not this one. It favors fake news on the left, and to true sites that are not on the mainstream media, it labels as conspiracy theory and junk pseudo science, when the truth is just the opposite. This website is as biased and as full of lies as you get.
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mediabiasfactcheck.com

Conservatives have criticized the liberal "fact-checking" website for being subjective and often outright false.[19][20][21] On their "10 Best Fact Checking Sites," they list several objectively false and generally inaccurate left-wing "fact-checkers," including PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Fact Checker by the Washington Post.[22]
Media Bias Fact Check sources its information from the Anti-Defamation League and the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center in order to inaccurately label right-wing websites and organizations as "questionable" sources according to Robert Spencer, who wrote to Media Bias/Fact Check's editor describing the attacks on his website, Jihad Watch, as "pure libel," afterward claiming he received no response from the editor.[23]
https://conservapedia.com/Media_Bias_Fact_Check

Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.
https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/

Overall, such fallacious attacks on outsider-opinion represent an effort to strangle social discourse from the top down. In this writer’s opinion, sites like Media Bias Fact Check constitute a desperate retaliatory measure in the wake of the legacy media’s loss of collective attention, and seek to reinforce narrative control in the hands of organizations like the Atlantic Council while smearing reliable sources of scientific journalism like WikiLeaks.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...ikileaks-supports-western-propaganda-machine/

If Media Bias Fact Check were to be given a rating, they would be “Left” with “Mixed” honesty. Interestingly enough, they don’t rate themselves. Not that it matters, they’d certainly put themselves squarely in the middle as “Least Biased” with “High” ratings for honesty, neither of which are even remotely true
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/topic/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-just-dishonest

 

Read em and weep.... spin it the best you can my liberal friend... your government can now spy on you for the purpose suppressing or burdening criticism or dissent of your government...

 

Which was the actual point.

 

Democrats do have one thing right: Democracy is and has been under the biggest attacks in the history of our country. But it's democrats doing it, not Republicans.

 

If I understand what your sources are saying the first paragraph you print above remains and the second has been omitted.

I pointed out that you said "rules" and that in effect it was "a rule" that could be misconstrued as being misleading. I made no statement other than that.

 

You're a guy that positions himself 100 yards off off center and then uses that to determine a "reasonable half-way" that other should meet.
The tactic is about as extreme, as left, and as ludicrous as it can get. Why are you there?

 

The sources of the OP omit the other portion of the executive order which bring the US data protection policy closer inline with the EU GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...he-european-union-u-s-data-privacy-framework/

This would be an improvement for US citizen data protection, and would apply more broadly to not just government, but corporate use of user data. The big opponents of this order would be data mining institutions, and companies that sell off user data.

 

And he revoked

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...nited-states-signals-intelligence-activities/

 

You start your answer to my post by making an assumption (100 yards off center) that you do not have enough information to make and then state that I determine a "reasonable half-way". That is not only pure misinformation but pure garbage to reflect the FACT that these stations have a HISTORY of lying, misinforming and distorting information against the left and in favor of the right.

Adding to what they do, you come along and defend people putting OP's that distort the truth?

There is a basis in all life that is called "the truth". It is what everyone that lives in the real world (not a made up fantasy one) uses to make their evaluations so they can do the right decisions.

On top of that, you accuse me of having an "extreme" tactic? I mean, really???? Truth, facts and data are extremes to you? What kind of world are you living in?