OK, let's look at the slide that WaPo just posted (classified picture warning)

[Recursion]

(I doubt anybody is here on a government computer, but if they are, spoiler space so you don't have to go report yourself.)









This is interesting. There are two paths here, one for live surveillance and one for stored communications. The FBI is involved with both.

For live surveillance, the S2 FAA adjudicators have to agree with the analyst that the target is not American; for stored communication, FISC has to. In either case, the request is then reviewed by Mission Management. After that, for stored communications the FBI has yet another level of checks where it ensures that the stored communications are not from US citizens.

The request is then forwarded to the FBI, who either engages in the realtime surveillance or requests the stored data from the providers, and then forwards it to the NSA once received.

There is no situation where a single analyst can just look at whatever the hell he wants. Snowden was lying about that. What's more, the NSA isn't doing any of the gathering itself.

[tularetom]

1. Sure, that's what they're telling us

[treestar]

4. Isn't that part of the leaked material itself?

So if that's all lies too, why did Ed bother?

[Recursion]

6. They're lying to us in a classified slide?

That seems a roundabout way of doing it.

[DevonRex]

24. So you just don't believe anything they say. Might as well

not change a thing then.

[railsback]

2. Dude, doesn't fit the meme

Stick with the program here: Its the end of our 4th Amendment rights and the government is spying on each and everyone of us without warrants. Oh, and don't attack the messenger when the messenger is supporting the meme. If the messenger ISN'T supporting the meme, then you are free to insult them.

[baldguy]

3. Que the Snowden fans saying this isn't proof in 4...3...2...

[Recursion]

19. It gets better! NSA doesn't even have the data, and has to ask for it from the FBI

It's almost as if somebody was just trolling us with false rumors.

[pnwmom]

5. Someone here yesterday kept insisting that slide proved that the NSA,

through PRISM, routinely collects content information on US citizens (not just metadata).

It is relief to see that someone besides me can read a diagram.

[Recursion]

7. yeah, i kept wondering too

This actually seems like a pretty good setup.

[dkf]

12. The problem is the constitutionality of the data collection.

You are stuck on the procedures after that unconstitutional collection where they try to clean up and pretend they have no capability of violating people's rights.

[Recursion]

13. Metadata has no Constitutional protection

So, no.

Actual content taps still require specific warrants.

[dkf]

20. Look at the latest release of slides...they specifically note content which comes from the FBI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134820

See slide 2.

[Recursion]

21. Slide two specifically says *all* of it comes from the FBI

With the exception of some dual-route stuff in cooperation with the CIA. The NSA just requests and then processes it.

[dkf]

23. The NSA processes content that is captured by the FBI.

But in order for the NSA to screen the FBI must possess it. Therefore they must be capturing content.

How is this...what are the odds that no content related to you or I rests in any government system used for surveillance, especially in the FBI DITU? What is your probability estimate?

[rhett o rick]

50. My guess is that the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. will gather as much data as they think they

can legally and then push the legality limit. My guess is that the FISA court is a kangaroo court that pretends to be oversight. My guess is that the intelligence agencies are able to keep those in Congress that are tasked with oversight, in the dark.

The deniers will counter and say everything was sooo nice before Snowden. They are scrambling to keep their denial bubbles intact. They scream out at every piece of evidence that shows that the 1% actually rule, even during a Democratic Admin.

[dkf]

52. They ignore the elephant in the room...the data collection.

Mighty convenient.

[hootinholler]

25. What do you think "Stored Content" is?

It seems to me this slide confirms the strategy of record everything (slurp) and authorize a looky loo into content after the fact (burp).

So please show me where the probable cause to record content comes into play. The notion of live or memorex did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written. Even if this doesn't rise to a violation of the Bill of Rights, it appears to violate wiretap laws. I contend that recording stuff for possible future use is a huge privacy violation.

There is no longer the notion of water over the dam in surveilance now. Record everything in case you want to look at it in the future. The use of that database is controlled administratively. A less friendly administration would have a field day.

This is not to consider other aspects of the programs, like what happens when a tap is bought by say The Carlyle Group? We are way past the age of governmental only spying.

Give me the right fulcrum and I have a lever that will move the Earth.

[Recursion]

44. Stored content is telephony

The WaPo article explains it pretty well.

[Orsino]

8. Fail.

Are we mistaking the org chart for the organization itself? The press release for the policy? The block diagram for the circuit layout? The Apple map for the actual highway?

How the fuck do we determine that "Snowden was lying" from a fucking Powerpoint slide?

Answer: we can't.

[Recursion]

10. This is the classified slide that was leaked. You're calling that a "press release"

OK, that's officially shark-jumping. Thanks for playing, though.

This slide describes the process by which network data is acquired.

[Orsino]

67. It's one broad description of what is claimed to be "the" process.

...with no information about other processes, or slides, that may supersede it. And certainly no evidence that it is free of deliberate lies.

None of us here has been invited to "play," so one slide in isolation tells us substantially less than diddly.

[frazzled]

57. People were willing to believe other things from PP charts by the organization

I mean, the big whoop from the beginning was the Power Point slide that had a box regarding "direct access." The government could get anything it wanted from Google or Yahoo without even asking; it could just plug in and read your email to Grandma! Now, many have questioned that this meant the government had the ability to get into content from the various entities at will, and the idea that they could has been pretty much debunked. But people still believe it ... and it's based on the same kind of PP slide.

[dkf]

9. So how did he get all the information he is leaking? Lol.

If there is no way to go outside of procedure he wouldn't have any info worth leaking.

He is evidence that you can.

[Recursion]

11. The slides? They're probably an orientation presentation

You do understand that the slides are not themselves the surveillance data, right?

[Whisp]

16. looks like we got some crack spies right here on DU!

they are pretending they don't know what that chart means and who made it or stole it.

I see a bright future for them.

[dkf]

17. All those docs marked top secret? Nothing?

It would be pretty hilarious if he has records on top govt officials that get released in his last resort plan. It would serve them right.

[Recursion]

18. That would be interesting, though I doubt he had access to them

Remember, the classified slides that he leaked (eg this one) specifically contradict his claims about what information he could get. Maybe the classified slides are lying, but then why would he release them?

[dkf]

22. He specifically said the access to the raw sigint is where you have access to it all.

That isn't using any government interface or program.

[Recursion]

26. So why release a slide that says the opposite? (nt)

[dkf]

40. If you aren't offended by the collection you should at least be appalled over the lack of security

That allows abuse.

Snowden just snabbed thousands of documents. If he did it many others could have or did? If he hadn't revealed it all would anyone have known? He exposed a HUGE vulnerability.

[JaneyVee]

45. You guys are over-looking the fact that there may another leaker higher up, Snowden may be fall guy

[dkf]

46. True. He went to Booz Allen to get the type of clearance that gave him a particular access.

How did he know this hole existed? Someone else understands the system better than he. Or it could be he heard co-workers talking about it and decided to see it for himself.

[mimi85]

66. Exactly what I've been thinking.

And, once again, who is bankrolling all of this?

[jazzimov]

27. But everything Snowden releases

directly contradicts what Greenwald says.

That's the point.

[dkf]

30. I don't know what you are referring to.

[Recursion]

32. This slide. right here. the one i posted

NSA doesn't even do its own surveillance, and there are three levels of approval and auditing after an analyst requests data.

[dkf]

36. The scandal is the collection. I thought that was the NSA but apparently it's the FBI...

Which seems worse because the NSA has the fig leaf of not needing to respect the rights of foreigners.

[Recursion]

37. The collection requires three stages of approval!

One from NSA, one from FISC, and one from an FBI desk whose purpose is to keep this program from targeting US citizens.

[dkf]

42. No no no. The collection is on the left side of slide 2 from the vendors.

All the procedures we have seen tell us what is needed legally to access that data which are on the right side of the slide. My problem is the collection itself, the entirety of the sigint.

[Skip Intro]

14. A link to the accompanying article would be nice. n/t

[Recursion]

15. Good point

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/

[kentuck]

28. I was under the impression that Snowden was not just an "analyst"...

..but that he was an IT guy that had access all the information on the computers. His job was to keep the computers running, I thought? In that case, he had access to all the information.

[Recursion]

29. But this slide shows the NSA doesn't even collect or keep the data

They have to ask for it from the FBI.

Now, does he have access to what they've already requested, been approved, and looked at? Conceivably. But this would hardly be the first example of government needing to tighten up its access rules.

[kentuck]

38. I think it may be the opposite?

The FBI has to ask for it from the NSA. But, they work together so it really doesn't matter.

[Recursion]

48. The slide says FBI does all collection

Though there are apparently some situations where CIA cooperates.

[SidDithers]

31. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. So this is all, the only thing? There is no possibility of things yet unrevealed?

This is a government which lies about spying on its people. Why would anyone trust it at all? What remains to be revealed?

And why aren't more people reading about the data analysis sector the 2014 NDAA will call into being?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023057822

[Recursion]

34. Why would it classify something made up?

Is there more? Possibly, but the docs Snowden leaked don't show it which is why so many of us have been leery of the wild claims he and GG keep making: everything they say keeps being contradicted by the documents they themselves reveal.

[Recursion]

35. NDAA

People aren't reading about the NDAA because it isn't law and hopefully never will be.

[Fire Walk With Me]

41. The House passed it 315-108.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll244.xml

Obama has twice signed previous NDAAs including section 1021, and even got section 1021 reinstated after a judge ruled it as being unConstitutional. I have little doubt that Obama will pass the 2014 version. So, even if such things do not currently exist, there is a definite pattern in place to specifically establish them. A systematic, incremental attack upon the country, because increments are nothing to be alarmed about. Until they are all in place.

[marions ghost]

49. +++ response

[Gravitycollapse]

39. In spite of your best efforts, the bottom line is that information from US citizens is being stored.

[truedelphi]

43. Some analysts have stated that Snowden was both NSA and CIA. n/t

[Recursion]

47. The Guardian said that in their profile of him

And that he had diplomatic cover in Geneva. As his first assignment.

[Cha]

51. Mahalo, Recursion.. Snowden Lie?!! he's a sneak and snitch..

why wouldn't he lie?

[Grassy Knoll]

53. Looks like facts are starting to surface.......

OMGhazi- Bullshit

IRS targeting teabaggers only- Bullshit
Holder targeting Fox News- Fuck Fox News, That was awesome

And Not Reading this slide before getting pissed- Priceless !!

[BlueCaliDem]

65. It appears that

Snowden defenders are getting more and more egg in their faces. I'm guessing that it makes them pret-ty angry.

[ZombieHorde]

54. That is pretty interesting. nt

[Zorra]

55. And why should we believe that? nt

[Recursion]

56. Because it's what Snowden leaked?

If you think the leaks are false what had this whole freak out been about?

[leveymg]

58. You're missing a set of important steps and pieces here that make a mash of your hypothesis:

1) The PRISM Tasking Process flowchart describes an NSA profiling process that does not involve the FBI at any level until the very end, when the FBI ESCU determines the suspect is or is not a US person.
2) The first step in the PRISM process is conducted by software that searches a series of interlinked databases and assembles a predictive profile. The scoring on that profile determines the subject as a potential target. Bill Binney describes that profiling process here: http://civic.mit.edu/blog/schock/the-government-is-profiling-you-william-binney-former-nsa
3) Until the FBI determines that the subject is a US person, the subject is presumed to be a non-US person, and the profiling part of the system affords no 4th Amendment protections in the warrantless search of an array of databases, including those of other US and foreign intelligence services.
4) During this tasking (profiling) stage, the analyst also has access to a near real-time take of the subject's internet activities and chat. No warrant is required for the analyst to carry out this human component of the profiling process. That is described at greater length here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134820
5) The analyst has 72 hours to search across NSA and outside agency databases, as well as real-time monitoring, from the time an anticulable suspicion is raised. During that investigation, supervision is minimal, and the analyst does not have to seek additional permission or a warrant. This initial profiling step is probably the unsupervised analyst's activities that Snowden was describing.

Those facts that may have been unknown or underappreciated by you, and you may want to reconsider your harsh conclusion:

There is no situation where a single analyst can just look at whatever the hell he wants. Snowden was lying about that. What's more, the NSA isn't doing any of the gathering itself.

[Recursion]

59. Was Snowden capable of manipulating the predictive profile score?

My harsh conclusion remains.

(Though in fairness, as described that process is much more problematic than the one on the slide I posted. Do we know how often it happens? Has the initial profiling data already passed through FESC/FISA/FAA?) But I'm still stuck with the fact that it's not intended to spy on US Citizens, though if it is too easy to abuse for that purpose, it should be fixed.

[leveymg]

60. The analyst makes an assessment based in part on the initial predictive score along with

whatever evidence (s)he has been able to gather from a subsequent manual search and analysis. More specifically, the operator can change the search functions, parameters, and fields that guide the search algorithm, much as one can do the same with the Advanced Search feature of GOOGLE.

You're entitled to your harsh conclusion of his actions, but you should not conclude that he was lying when he said he was able to access the subject's email and Internet chat. Can you give me a link to exactly what he claimed to access?

[Recursion]

61. I'm thinking of two specific claims

1. Snowden claimed he could wiretap "anyone… even the President if I had a personal email."

He later walked that back and admitted there were "policy protections for US citizens."

(TPM covers this here.)

2. Snowden claimed he could "watch your thoughts form as you typed" (particularly odd, since typing does not send any network information except for some AJAX-based web chat clients).

(Mother Jones covers this here.)

[leveymg]

62. I'll look at those. Thnx.

He's probably telling the truth about reading personal email on non government systems. If they can get into the CIA Director's Gmail account, they can the President's (assuming he uses Gmail)

If the person was typing on-line, the system has near real-time access and alerts when the subject logs on.

[Recursion]

63. So the claim is that a bad actor could have a loophole to bypass some of the safeguards?

Yes, that's probably true. It's also true of local police and their phone tapping capabilities, or their door-knocking-down capabilities. I don't lie awake at night thinking of ways the government could make my life hell if it ignored the law (though I admit doing that with corporations sometimes).

That said, I'll look more into the 72 hour loophole you described; it does seem insufficiently overseen. But now we're talking about deliberate malfeasance on a corner case of the safeguards, and we still don't know if the initial profile data had been pre-cleared by FESC (or some other desk) or not.

[BlueCheese]

64. It's hard to interpret this slide. There's not enough detail about each of those boxes.

What are "input selectors"? Does that refer to a person, or a set of traits? (Emails sent from a particular set of IP addresses?)

In the case of "S2 FAA Adjudicators" and "FISA Oversight and Processing", what does this process involve? For the second case, does this mean actual judges look at the "input selectors", or that the NSA has to use a process that has been approved by the FISC? (My reading of previous articles is the latter.)

Previous articles have also said that data involving US persons that has been "inadvertently" collected can be kept if it contains evidence of criminal activity, etc. It's unclear if this slide contradicts that.

We've always known it was the FBI that demanded the data from various providers. The original Verizon warrant was issued on bhealf of the NSA by the FBI.

To me, the disturbing part of all of this is that the executive branch has been collecting all the phone records (and possibly Internet metadata) of every American without individual warrants. They are also apparently collecting as much Internet content as they can from communications into and out of the U.S. They are able to query this data based on a 51% belief that the parties involved are not U.S. persons. If, however, it turns out in the end that the parties are U.S. persons, they can still keep the data if it turns out to be useful. As far as I can tell, the only time the judicial branch is involved is when it periodically reauthorizes the collection of domestic phone data.

It may be that no individual analyst can examine this data, at least without unseen approval by supervisors. But it sounds like the entire process is still contained within the executive branch. And that is still very scary.

[Galraedia]

68. k&r