Talk:OAKSTAR

FAA702 presumption

This article says, "SIGADs not otherwise designated are presumed to operate under the legal authority of Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA)." I personally would not presume that, given the possibility of secret legal interpretations or executive orders which have not been made public, so I added the [by whom] weasel-word tag to "presumed." Personally I would like to see this sentence dropped, and the blank fields in the table filled with the word unknown. --Stybn (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is quite a body of evidence surrounding that statement. What it comes from is the authorities of the parent programs. The Corporate Portfolio slide allows the sigads to be correctly associated with their parents. Additional slides in particular you want to see:

• this Slide classifies Oakstar as form of upstream collection
  this Slide classifies Oakstar as form of upstream collection
• 
  this slide shows FAA 702 as associated with upstream.
• 
  More Specific: Fairview "Collection only Possible under FAA702 authority"
• 
  More Specific: STORMBREW "Collection only Possible under FAA702 authority"

The original presentation ought to contain 2 more slides just like the above, with a map for Oakstar, and a map for Blarney. (there is much more involved with Blarney). The Secret legal interpretation is the Transit Authority, referenced in SILVERZEPHYR. Congress never voted for that. In all probability it was approved by a FISA judge. The Executive order is 12333. There are a few more slides and fragments shown on Brazilian TV that are right on the very edge of legibility that emphasize FAA702.

• 
  Slide fragment mentioning "upstream collection", FAA702 , EO 12333, and references yahoo.com explicitly in the text.
• 
  Tasking, Points to Remember. Transcript of body: [illegible] your targets meet FAA criteria, you should [illegible] to FAA. Emergency tasking processes exist for [imminent /immediate ] threat to life situations and targets can be placed on [illegible] within hours (surveillance and stored comms). Get to know your Product line FAA adjudicators and FAA leads.

There is another document, that I haven't cited yet, It's an 85 page fisa court order on upstream collection that goes into rather painful detail about how it's done, and the techno-legalese associated. And how it went awry. Section 702 is all over the place in that one.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/22/us/22nsa-opinion-document.html?_r=0

There ought to be a few news articles about this, but they tend to be unreliable in one aspect or another.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmd199 (talk • contribs) 2013-09-13T20:50:02‎

Thanks for the detailed reply. So rather than saying "presumed to operate under the legal authority of Section 702" can we say "would seem to operate…because…"? Please be sure to sign your future comments on Talk pages. --Stybn (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Real Identity is Qwest

The real identity of OAKSTAR is Qwest. It is too easy to figure out which is why some journalists did not use this name in their articles.

In Latin:

OAK = Quercus STAR = Stella

Que St Quest Qwest

Now to work on STORMBREW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.73.102 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)