A "reassuring" NSA story that isn't....the mission IS creeping.

[Pholus]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/other-agencies-gripe-that-nsa-fbi-shut-them-out-of-data-sharing/

links to this article from yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/us/other-agencies-clamor-for-data-nsa-compiles.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

The takeaway is supposed to be that the NSA is a good steward of all the basically illegally collected data they have, but the story honestly underlines that mission creep which will destroy our democracy is ALREADY an issue here. It's just the NSA feels they have managed to keep things under control. That isn't completely clear...

My main observations:

1) We already have mission creep. This isn't only about terrorism, it is seen by many government agencies as a new law enforcement tool being unfairly held away from them. Verified non-terrorism applications seem to include the DEA (War on Drugs) and the secret service (counterfeiting). The recording industry is apparently quite interested in curbing copyright infringement with this data too, but it is unclear that they've actually gotten anything yet. The DoD and Homeland Security have gotten data as well, but the actual purpose (cyberwarfare) is not inconsistent with national security purposes. Other uses (The BATF use on smuggled cigarettes) are presented deeper in the article next to paragraphs making it sound like some requests are questionable. Certainly the intelligence officials seem to be saying that they are approached for uses that are stretched badly to make it look like national security...

2) The spate of "intelligence isn't being shared because of petty turf wars" stories from last year? How much of them sourced on other government organizations trying to get a slice of the privacy invading pie? How much political pressure can the NSA withstand?

3) These federal agencies already knew that this data was there. Knowledge of the program was an open secret even among agencies who don't actually have a national security need to know. So much for proper classification. The terrorists were probably well aware after a few of them disappeared or got blown up, other government agencies who have nothing to do with national security knew too. So in the end it was only the rubes (us) that didn't know all this was going on.

4) Since the FISA court gets involved in these "turf wars," it would be interesting to know how many nonterrorism cases they've heard and what their record is on granting access. Is this the plot that shows that only about 1% of patriot act actions involve terrorism and the bulk of the rest is drugs? If these nonterrorism cases are at all folded into the documented FISA history of overwhelmingly granting requests, this represents a HUGE problem from a civil rights point of view.

5) We know the system is specifically set up for operation outside of the normal judicial process for national security. This extralegality is specifically seen as an ADVANTAGE by those agencies who want to use the data for nonterrorism uses.

6) The NSA faces LOTS of pressure. While they tell us they have been careful in crossing the line, we only have their word on it and let's face it they're not going to be honest about it.

7) This surveillance is used for the benefits of prosecution, and in the last month the NYTimes already documented three court cases where it is plain that dragnet surveillance results are used to "motivate" investigations in a way that leaves its fingerprints off the proceedings. I would think this widespread use of "intelligence" destroys our adversarial legal system as pretty much any statement made by a prosecutor that is not backed up by evidence may still have some credibility because it might have come from magic "secret intelligence" instead of merely being flawed.

[grasswire]

1. AND the intelligence elites are more powerful than the President...

....or the Congress of the United States. That is the actuality that rachets the madness of it all.

[dkf]

2. Snowden said the raw sigint was accessible by all branches.

Maybe they can't use it in court but they can sure find targets that they can find some piece of data to establish reasonable suspicion.

[Pholus]

5. Still trying to think about how unerring "tips" like this will affect the system.

Certainly, if it comes into widespread use I would expect the criminals to adapt fairly quickly.

The rest of us? Probably going to fall into any number of traps without realizing it.

[pscot]

3. Mission creep is built in

to the mission statements. DHS (die Heimatsversicherheitsamt) has create Fusion Centers to coordinate this buzz of activity: http://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion-centers

[Pholus]

4. Nice "dot connection" there.

I guess that explains how all these organizations knew...

[grasswire]

6. your last point is quite interesting

Will the dragnet drive a new prison expansion binge? Will it drive further militarization of our local law enforcement? How is it being used for law enforcement aside from "terrorism"?

[nashville_brook]

13. one of the "compromise" provisions that republicans are pushing on immigration reform

is to turn local law enforcement into de facto DHS cops. so, yes.

[Catherina]

7. K&R n/t

[WillyT]

8. K & R !!!

[fascisthunter]

9. fascism

[cantbeserious]

10. Straight Up - Served Chilled Over The Dead Body Of Democracy And The 4th Amendment

eom

[grasswire]

11. i'm trying to reconcile this with Jamie Gorelick's firewall. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. They do this because it's possible....

It's nothing new for Liberals to be outraged about people in the government so invisible as far as the law is concerned that we call them "spooks".

And, YES. They have ALWAYS worked for the Right Wing since the Cold War.

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. So the recording industry wants to use it to guard its copyrights.

Now there's a great reason to be shredding the Constitution. Gee, I can only hope the secret FISC judges don't allow that. But then, we probably won't find out either way.