NSA Director Says Leaker’s Wiretapping Ability Claims Are ‘False’

[ProSense]

NSA Director Says Leaker’s Wiretapping Ability Claims Are ‘False’

By Andrea Peterson

While speaking at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on enduring cybersecurity threats, National Security Agency (NSA) Director Gen. Keith Alexander called claims made by NSA leaker Edward Snowden about his personal wiretapping abilities at the Agency “false.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) asked directly, “I saw an interview in which Mr. Snowden claimed that due to his position at NSA he could tap into virtually any American’s phone call or e-mails. True or false?” Alexander responded unequivocally, “False, I know of no way to do that.”

Collins’ appeared to be referencing a statement made by Snowden in an interview where he claimed “I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail.”

According to earlier reports, Snowden was essentially a contracted IT guy for the NSA rather than an intelligence officer.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/06/12/2146871/alexander-snowden-wiretapping/

[dkf]

1. How do we know this wasn't the least untruthful thing he could say?

[KittyWampus]

14. Because anyone making the extraordinary claim that communications corporations willingly allow

the NSA to eavesdrop at will on communications needs to prove it.

[dkf]

18. He has 4 computers worth of data. Maybe he can.

Too bad they won't pardon him. I bet he could tell our senators more about how the IT system truly works than the leaders.

[geek tragedy]

22. We don't, but only a fool would take Snowden or this guy at his word. nt

[randome]

2. You know, if Snowden wanted to show evidence of this he could have done so.

Maybe he could have ordered up a serving of Obama's personal email as he claimed.

Sure, that might be against the law but that hasn't given him pause so far, has it?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[bunnies]

32. +1 nt

[dkf]

44. He hasn't leaked anything to defend himself, but to expose the system.

If the Government had half a brain they would pardon him so he could expose gaps in the system.

[cali]

3. yes, he's been ever so truthful.

[KittyWampus]

15. And Snowden provided what evidence? This claim is a wild, unsupportable one. So evidence he could do

this would need to be forthcoming.

[JaneyVee]

4. The NSA shows proof that they get court orders, we're going to need to see proof of Snowden's claim.

ETA: If Snowden is correct then this program should be dismantled at once.

[Skidmore]

5. This is one of the reasons I have a hard time believing Snowden's claims.

Most organizations have firewalls between departments, offices, and even between people for security reasons. I can't see the intelligence gathering agencies of our nation giving total access to a contract worker. A regular staff member, possibly. The only way that his claims make sense is if he were engaging in hacking. My opinion. This is not a statement on whether this man is a hero or villian or on 4th amendment issues or any policy positions. I just have a hard time believing that claim.

[Laelth]

31. The NSA has thousands of hackers who work to find a way around those firewalls.

This article is worth your attention:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/

-Laelth

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. Quelle surprise.

What did you THINK he was going to say?

[cali]

7. Do you find Alexander credible?

Why?

[ProSense]

8. Do you think he's lying? I mean

"Do you find Alexander credible? Why?"

...why not come out and just state that you don't think he's not credible instead of resorting to a Gestapo tactic?

[cali]

10. OK, you've completely lost it.

gestapo tactics are asking if you find someone credible and why you do?

poor little prosense.

And yes, I certainly will entertain the idea that a head spook type would be untruthful. See Clapper, James.

[ProSense]

11. Your faux outrage is hilarious. n/t

[Aerows]

13. If you lie before Congress

It's hardly "faux outrage" to think you will lie about anything, considering that lying before Congress is a felony.

But that's just me.

[ProSense]

17. What the hell are you talking about? n/t

[Aerows]

21. Oh my.

"Least untruthful answer" etc. That sounds like a person that doesn't lie, right? It's doubleplusgood.

[ProSense]

29. Wait,

"Oh my. 'Least untruthful answer' etc. That sounds like a person that doesn't lie, right? It's doubleplusgood."

...what the hell does that have to do with the OP or my point that the other poster is engaged in "faux outrage" after being called on a Gestapo tactic?

[Aerows]

38. I follow the money

the information security business is big money, and frankly, isn't worth as much as it claims to be worth. (see leaks)

[cali]

16. uh huh. you're just laughing away.

too bad your rage is so apparent. and it don't seem faux at all. you are losing it. what a shame.

[ProSense]

19. I still

"uh huh. you're just laughing away. too bad your rage is so apparent. and it don't seem faux at all. you are losing it. what a shame."

...think the way you respond is weird. I mean, all the condescending crap and insult. You have issues.

[snooper2]

47. do you actually know what happens when you pick up your phone and make a call?

I'm starting to think people here believe the phone network is just a "series of tubes"

[SlimJimmy]

52. You beat me to it. See excerpt from Clapper's testimony before Congress. So,

is it possible that Alexander was not telling us the truth? I'd say the possibility certainly exists.

"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Oregon Republican Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper at the March 12 hearing.

"No, sir," Clapper responded.

"It does not?" Wyden pressed.

Clapper recanted and said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect -- but not wittingly."

[G_j]

12. I would venture that lying is part

of his job.

[geek tragedy]

20. Aren't you saying that issues not personalites matter?

Of course, you believe everything Snowden has to say.

[Aerows]

23. I believe in following the money

The information security contractor business is an 80 billion a year industry. Follow the money. A hell of a lot of people can be cut off from the gravy train.

Draw your own conclusions.

[geek tragedy]

25. As a rule, don't believe anyone connected with the intelligence apparatus.

That includes Snowden as well as this guy.

[Aerows]

26. Nor should you

but that doesn't make the exposing of this apparatus invalid. It just means we are wasting fucktons of money on something that a) doesn't work b) is too intrusive and c) was lied about and kept secret because they knew that a and b don't sit well with the American public.

[geek tragedy]

30. Sure. And revealing the programs themselves was probably a positive contribution.

But, that doesn't mean that every revelation is either true or productive.

[Aerows]

35. And it doesn't mean

that they weren't, either.

[geek tragedy]

37. But, what fun is it to avoid rushing to judgment ? nt

[Aerows]

40. Hey, asking questions

if that's rushing to judgment, then I rush to judgment because I'm going to ask questions when information comes to light. If that makes me a "rusher to judgment" type because I ask for more information, guilty as charged.

[geek tragedy]

42. Was not an accusation directed at you, just a general observation

of how discourse goes round these parts.

[Aerows]

45. Indeed

Asking questions isn't the problem it's assuming you know the answers before you open your mouth - I agree.

[Laelth]

36. Yes, but it does work.

It does work if you believe, as the NSA does, that cyberwarfare is the biggest threat currently facing the US. Cyberwarfare is now the main justification for our massive surveillance/security apparatus. And the evidence suggests that our cyberwarfare capabilities are strong and working quite well. This isn't about "terror" any more.

This article is worth your consideration: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/

-Laelth

[Aerows]

43. Uh, I won't go here

For several reasons.

[Laelth]

49. Probably wise, but I am curious about your reticence.

You may be a wiser person than I.

-Laelth

[cali]

46. no. sorry. I certainly do not believe everything Snowden has to say.

now scurry off and fetch some more crap.

[geek tragedy]

48. You haven't expressed any skepticism towards any of his claims.

But, when someone else contradicts his claims, you're ready to challenge that person's credibility.

Transparent.

[Laelth]

50. If you're skeptical about his claims ...

... and I admire skepticism, you might want to read this article. It explains a lot about the NSA's capabilities: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/

-Laelth

[geek tragedy]

53. Of course, everything in that article is something the NSA wanted

to be published.

Scary thought is that the rest of the world won't be that far behind.

[Laelth]

55. Well, that's a very interesting thought.

And you may be right. The NSA may have wanted all of that published, but why? And why now?

My own speculation on that subject goes like this:

Alexander announced his intention to retire in 2014. Perhaps that gave someone the ability to launch a national discussion on this issue without fear of reprisal from Alexander. Or, perhaps, Alexander launched this national discussion in the hopes of reigning in his successor (whomever that may be) because Alexander rightly fears tyranny if the power he has at his disposal were to fall into less benign hands.

-Laelth

[geek tragedy]

56. There's way too much detail there to have been acquired

without cooperation from the NSA. Especially re: Iran.

[Laelth]

57. Here's the supposed basis for the author's knowledge.

Other than interviews, which the author obviously conducted, James Bamford, the author, says this:

As a longtime chronicler of the NSA, I served as a consultant for Drake’s defense team.

-Laelth

Edit:Laelth--spelling and clarity.

[geek tragedy]

58. I don't know that Drake had access to all that information. nt

[cali]

51. I haven't expressed anything about his claims. nothing

I've expressed quite a bit about the massive surveillance state we've become.

and yeah, I'm transparent. I have no hidden agenda. I'm not the one who lies and lies and lies.

[geek tragedy]

54. "I'm not the one who lies and lies and lies"

Except when you do. And then you lie about having lied,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3002471

Of course, we never did get that "I was wrong about Sherry West having her own baby killed" that you promised everyone. Of course, you then lied and said you had made such a post.

[KurtNYC]

9. Snowden is not the only one to have seen these abilities

[reformist2]

24. LOL @ the notion of any spy telling the public the truth.

If they did reveal their secrets, wouldn't they be guilty of the very things they're accusing Snowden of?

[kenny blankenship]

27. And why wouldn't we believe a guy who committed perjury in testimony before the Senate?

[dkf]

28. Wyden said he questioned Clapper because he felt Alexander's answers were misleading.

Some other statements of N.S.A. officials appear in retrospect to offer a mistaken impression of the agency’s collection of information about Americans. Mr. Wyden said he had pressed Mr. Clapper on the matter because he had been dissatisfied with what he felt were misleading answers from Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the N.S.A. director. And in a recent speech, the N.S.A.’s general counsel, Rajesh De, sought to debunk what he called “false myths” about the agency, including the idea that “N.S.A. is spying on Americans at home and abroad with questionable or no legal basis.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/nsa-disclosures-put-awkward-light-on-official-statements.html?_r=1&

[ProSense]

33. That is about a hearing in March. Here

is Wyden's statement:

Wyden Statement Responding to Director Clapper’s Statements About Collection on Americans

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued the following statement regarding statements made by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about collection on Americans. Wyden is a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“One of the most important responsibilities a Senator has is oversight of the intelligence community. This job cannot be done responsibly if Senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions. When NSA Director Alexander failed to clarify previous public statements about domestic surveillance, it was necessary to put the question to the Director of National Intelligence. So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer. Now public hearings are needed to address the recent disclosures and the American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives.”

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-responding-to-director-clappers-statements-about-collection-on-americans

Still, the point of the OP is someone is lying.

[dkf]

39. Yes...didn't mean that Wyden had said this about the OP quote.

Just meant to point out that Wyden is skeptical of earlier answers from Alexander.

[The Magistrate]

34. One Suspects, Ma'am, He May Have Mistaken The Meanings Of 'Authorized' And 'Able'....

He may have had the ability, from his position, to get into any communication ( I confess I am pretty hazy on the technical elements of this ), but it seems extremely unlikely he had the authority to do so on his oddy-knocky....

[randome]

61. And if it was as easy as he claimed, why not show us one of Obama's emails?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DCBob]

41. Snowden should now respond with some further proof/evidence.

If he cant then I believe Alexander.

[Apophis]

59. Of course the NSA director would never lie.

[ljm2002]

60. Yeah, the NSA Director would never lie to us...

...it's not in his job description.

Oh. Wait.

Yes, it is in his job description. He absolutely MUST lie about certain things, same way Mr. Clapper lied about the extent of record collection: He had to lie because to not lie would be to reveal classified information.

Now as to Mr. Snowden's claims, I would guess he may have overstated his own ability to tap into anyone's phone lines. However, did he overstate the ability of the agency itself to do so? I don't think so.

Anyway, this latest statement sheds no light whatsoever on the issue, because we already know they've lied to us and we know they'll lie to us again. And again. And again... it's what they do.

We have all accepted this sort of secrecy, to a point. But you have to trust the people who are engaging in it. At this point, though, they have lied so often and about so much, why should we trust anything they say? That's what happens when you break trust. And once trust is broken, it is very, very hard to win it back.