What you'll be reading about NSA surveillance tomorrow (updated)

[sheshe2]

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 09:22 AM - Edit history (2)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2013
What you'll be reading about NSA surveillance tomorrow (updated)

Snip:

Secondly, the release of the 2 white papers on the metadata collection program is likely aimed at quelling the "Oh my, we didn't know!" coming from so many members of Congress lately. This article goes on to point out that the papers were given to the Intelligence Committees in both the House and Senate - who were then asked to provide them to all members of Congress in a classified setting. The message is that if they didn't know, they chose not to.

Snip:

The overall fact - as even Greenwald has to admit - is that in order to review this kind of information about US persons, they need a warrant.

Under US law, the NSA is required to obtain an individualized Fisa warrant only if the target of their surveillance is a 'US person', though no such warrant is required for intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets. But XKeyscore provides the technological capability, if not the legal authority, to target even US persons for extensive electronic surveillance without a warrant provided that some identifying information, such as their email or IP address, is known to the analyst.

Snip:

On the point about intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets, what Greenwald fails to mention is the process of "minimization" employed by NSA in which analysts immediately remove that material.

Now, anyone who discusses this process without also mentioning minimization procedures is also either very uninformed or intentionally hyping the story. Minimization is a term of art in the world of NSA intercepts which essentially means “stay out of American citizen’s business.” If information about specific Americans (or even foreigners inside the United States) is captured, those details must be removed from all records and cannot be shared with any other entity in the government unless it is necessary to understand and interpret related foreign intelligence or to protect lives from criminal threats.
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-youll-be-reading-about-nsa.html

11:10 AM, JUNE 14 2013
PRISM Isn’t Data Mining and Other Falsehoods in the N.S.A. “Scandal”
by Kurt Eichenwald

As for the purported secrecy of this program—folks haven’t been listening. Section 702 was widely debated and parsed through by the Congress before its adoption in 2008 (under the Bush administration). It was widely debated and parsed through by Congress before its re-authorization in December 2012 (under the Obama administration). Any supposed expert who feigns surprise here is, once again, either uninformed or hyping.

SNIP:

Some explanation up front: I spent seven years investigating the national-security systems and policies established in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks for my book 500 Days. I learned a fair amount about the data-mining programs of the N.S.A. and wrote about it. I summarized those findings in my last post. However, now it has become obvious to me that I need to go further than I did in my book, at least in hopes of calming things down. When discussing errors, I’m going to mention “reports” regarding news articles, but I’m not going to identify them—the last thing I want is for this to become a back-and-forth between reporters.

First, the much-ballyhooed PRISM program is not a program and not a secret, and anyone who says it is should not be trusted because they don’t know what they’re talking about. PRISM is the name for the government computer system that is used to handle the foreign-intelligence data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

‘SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

‘(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.

SNIP:

‘(2) DETERMINATION- A determination under this paragraph and for purposes of subsection (a) is a determination by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence that exigent circumstances exist because, without immediate implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order pursuant to subsection (i)(3) prior to the implementation of such authorization.

MORE:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text

SNIP:

My hope is that these explanations will make it clear why even I, as a civil libertarian, have no problem with data-mining programs. The information being obtained by the government entails far fewer privacy issues and danger of abuse than exists in your taxes or the census. Sure, people could make the argument that this could be the slippery slope to some sort of effort by the government to monitor your porn subscriptions, but . . . really? The N.S.A. is downloading petabytes of data every day with so many anonymizers and protections in place, it is incomprehensible to imagine (and illegal and technologically problematic) that someone would just somehow start surfing through private records. To me, the slippery-slope argument makes as much sense as the N.R.A.’s position that, if we use background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the United States is on the way to the seizure of weapons. And they make the same silly argument—they think that the government invades their privacy by running those checks.

As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said in a 1949 dissent, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Creating absurd hurdles to protect against imaginary threats that instead open the door to real threats is self-defeating. We all need to calm down, recognize that no one is listening to our phone calls or reading our e-mails or hiding under our beds. These are programs that have been adopted very carefully, for a specific purpose. And for all those hypocrites who first wail that the Boston bombing wasn’t stopped, and now wail about a working program that has successfully impeded real terror attacks, I have this to say: shut up, Mr. Hannity.


MORE:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

More:
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-youll-be-reading-about-nsa.html

[randome]

1. I imagine Glenn is not going to sleep well tonight.

Maybe it's time to move on to what those bastards at the IRS are capable of doing!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[deurbano]

9. Why would he not sleep well tonight? OP refers to what was going to happen (and did happen) today.

Though, "Smartypants" has a different interpretation of today's events than Reuters (for example):

"New Snowden Leak Upstages U.S. Move to Declassify Documents"

Source: Reuters

By Alina Selyukh and Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON | Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:50pm EDT

<<WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New revelations from former security contractor Edward Snowden that U.S. intelligence agencies have access to a vast online tracking tool came to light on Wednesday as lawmakers put the secret surveillance programs under greater scrutiny.

The Guardian, citing documents from Snowden, published National Security Agency training materials for the XKeyscore program, which the newspaper described as the NSA's widest-reaching system that covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the Internet."

Intelligence analysts can conduct surveillance through XKeyscore by filling in an on-screen form giving only a "broad justification" for the search and no review by a court or NSA staff, the Guardian said.

Snowden's revelations to media that U.S. intelligence agencies collected data on phone calls and other communications of Americans and foreign citizens as a tool to fight terrorism have sparked uproar in the United States and abroad.

Intelligence officials say the programs helped thwart terrorist attacks.

"The implication that NSA's collection is arbitrary and unconstrained is false," the agency said in a statement in response to the Guardian's new report, calling XKeyscore part of "NSA's lawful foreign signals intelligence collection system."

Lawmakers have called for greater oversight of the vast surveillance system, which expanded rapidly after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001.>>

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE96U03320130731

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553490

[randome]

10. Oh. Did I misinterpret the OP? I thought the story was about more documents being declassified.

It's a lonnnnng OP. Give me a break!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[shawn703]

2. Informative post, thank you

It probably doesn't fit with many people's current narrative here, so I hope you have a flame suit ready.

[cantbeserious]

3. I Don't Buy The Denials

eom

[nebenaube]

4. Gee, would you still be ok with it if you discovered that

Gee, would you still be ok with it if you discovered that someone had 'rooted' your system, and not only did they use it to host websites that sell fake meds like cialis and viagra, but your nice little laptop is also part of a peer to peer photo exchange network and interpol is now looking for you. Not to mention that the attacker used your logins to attach to your corporate network and when no one at work is working, the entire computing resources of the company are dedicated to mining for bitcoins, looking for other servers to infect, running phishing scams and oohh fuck it... it's the NSA that is doing all of this... we proles are too stupid.

[quinnox]

5. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

[disidoro01]

6. ok

didn't read it all but am I correct to say that this tells us it is impossible for a persons metadata to be reviewed without a warrant?
Also while Abdulrahman's communications needed a warrant, it was acceptable to drone him to death?
Yes stupid questions. Feel free to ignore because answering them will take thought.

Can i finally get some real examples of the threats this has protected us from because I believe the government is creating imaginary threats while failing to protect us from real threats ie, the boston bombings.

[sheshe2]

11. Well...

"didn't read it all but am I correct to say that this tells us it is impossible for a persons metadata to be reviewed without a warrant?"

Maybe you should read the whole story at the links. You could start with section 702.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text

And where in the articles, with provided links said this:

"Also while Abdulrahman's communications needed a warrant, it was acceptable to drone him to death?

As for:

"Feel free to ignore because answering them will take thought."

Reading takes thought too.


Articles can supply an immense amount of information. One only needs to read it.

But I can say for a fact that this data-mining and telecommunications program has had significant successes. For example, a network of terrorists at least twice attempted to spirit strontium 90 from Uzbekistan into Kazakhstan; both of those times the smuggling was stopped, once through traditional intelligence activities, and once through the use of the data-mining program. Specific cyber-attacks have been stopped, and strategic plans of terrorist groups obtained. However, it has to be understood that data mining is not a single tool—rather, it is part of a broad array of intelligence-gathering activities, and is rarely used alone to prove a national-security risk.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal

[disidoro01]

16. ok

We know that Snowden took this information and everybody had their thumb up their asses whle he was doing it. We have reports that some people to mine this are listening to personal calls without warrant. So i guess you can cling to this notion that the law sezs there must be oversight. While to do this, can you enlighten me on your views of the bush administration?
I want you to understand the hypocrisy when you and others talk of oversight and safety measures on data-mining (and the misguided belief that those measures are used) while showing what our government does whenever it wants to. A teenage boy was murdered ok? And you cheerleaders say crazy things about the ethics of our government.

So a few examples of dubious successes gleaned from how many billions of communications? I seriously want to know. How many successful uses of this entire program versus the sum total of captured data?

[randome]

17. They are not allowed to listen to Americans' calls without a warrant.

They can listen to a foreign individual's calls. Now if that individual is talking to an American, of course they are going to hear the American part of a conversation.

You can't only listen to one person on a call. You cannot get the email of only the sender without also getting the recipient's part of an email conversation.

Do you see how that works?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[disidoro01]

18. The craziest thing I hear

is when you and others say "they are not allowed to"...They do, there are reports of this happening and you cling to this notion of nobility where NSA agents and outside contractors carry themselves with honesty. Not allowed to? This isn't elementary school.
What exactly is your position on the NSA?
We are not allowed to kill americans without a trial but we do...do you see how that works??
There is significant overreach at a cost to american taxpayers to the tune of billions.
And the insanity of vacuuming up all communications, storing them away for a later date is mindblowing. Not foriegn communications, all communications.

[randome]

19. 'Vacuuming up all communications'. Again, you are willing to take Greenwald's word for that.

When there is no evidence that is happening, only vague claims of nefarious activities.

I'll believe anything when I see the evidence. S&G have none.

Having laws and regulations in place is not 'crazy'. Can the NSA abuse its authority? Of course they can. Is there evidence they are doing so? In one instance, the FISA court reined them in. That's what courts are for.

Even Carl Bernstein said it looks from what we know that the safeguards and restrictions in place at NSA are very good. I agree with that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[disidoro01]

20. I would rather believe

Snowden. His initial statements weeks ago are backed up by the xkeyscore revelations of late. Now the argument isn't "we can't do what he said we can do" to "we wouldn't do what he said we could do". What next?"We typically don't do what he said we could do"?
yes I believe Snowden over Cheney and Mike Rogers I just want you to acknowledge that you are firmly supporting Bush and Cheney on this. They like you believe in these tools and their legality and the justification that the benefits outway any rights we may have. But remember we can't tell you what good it's doing.
Why would they need a massive data center in utah costing billions if they weren't vacuuming up and storing all of this data and do some research on the scale.

[Fuddnik]

12. Well, they did get the "Insane Clown Posse" terrorists in Miami....after trying them 6 times.

Even though they were mostly homeless and didn't have computers.

And they couldn't find Chicago with a map.

Got them terrists.

[Scurrilous]

7. Thanks.

K & R

[PoliticAverse]

8. Interesting that a 'civil libertarian' is using the 'constitution is not a suicide pact' argument

which I've often heard used by conservatives against civil libertarians.

Jackson's dissent in Terminiello v Chicago the final paragraph of which is actually:

This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

was an argument for more restrictions on free speech. The argument didn't carry the day and yet the US is still here
64 years later.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._Chicago

[Cha]

13. mahalo, she! the ultimate

NSA info wrapped up from smartypants!

Bookmarked!

[treestar]

14. K&R

For sanity.

[freshwest]

15. Oops, you'll mess with the magick.