Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 12:47 AM Aug 2013

NSA statements to The Post

NSA statements to The Post

By Barton Gellman, Published: August 15

The National Security Agency offered these comments on The Washington Post’s article about privacy violations.

Aug. 14

In July 2012, Director of National Intelligence (James R.) Clapper declassified certain statements about the government’s implementation of Section 702 in order to inform the public and congressional debate relating to reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). Those statements acknowledged that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had determined that “some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

The FISC’s finding was with respect to a very specific and highly technical aspect of the National Security Agency’s 702 collection. Once the issue was identified and fully understood, it was reported immediately to the FISC and Congress. In consultation with the FISC, the Department of Justice, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence worked to address the concerns identified by the FISC by strengthening the NSA minimization procedures, thereby enhancing privacy protections for U.S. persons. The FISC has continued to approve the collection as consistent with the statute and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.


Aug. 12

Obama administration statement on ‘compliance incident’ statistics.

The NSA communications office, in coordination with the White House and Director of National Intelligence, declined to answer questions about the number of violations of the rules, regulations and court-imposed standards for protecting the privacy of Americans, including whether the trends are up or down. Spokesmen provided the following prepared statement.

Looking over a 3-year period that includes the 1st first quarter 2010 through second quarter 2013, the data for that quarter are above the average number of incidents reported in any given quarter during that period. The number of incidents in a given quarter during that 3-year period ranged from 372 to 1,162. A variety of factors can cause the numbers of incidents to trend up or down from one quarter to the next. They include, but are not limited to: implementation of new procedures or guidance with respect to our authorities that prompt a spike that requires “fine tuning,” changes to the technology or software in the targeted environment for which we had no prior knowledge, unforeseen shortcomings in our systems, new or expanded access, and “roaming” by foreign targets into the U.S., some of which NSA cannot anticipate in advance but each instance of which is reported as an incident. The one constant across all of the quarters is a persistent, dedicated effort to identify incidents or risks of incidents at the earliest possible moment, implement mitigation measures wherever possible, and drive the numbers down.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-statements-to-the-post/2013/08/15/f40dd2c4-05d6-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

FYI: Working to address compliance issues and strengthening the minimization procedures is not an impeachable offense.

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NSA statements to The Post (Original Post) ProSense Aug 2013 OP
you're gonna need to shovel with BOTH hands soon. nt grasswire Aug 2013 #1
I can always tell when someone can't come up with anything to refute the point. n/t ProSense Aug 2013 #2
your boilerplate response. nt grasswire Aug 2013 #3
Well, it's true. n/t ProSense Aug 2013 #5
Yeah, so can I. Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #13
If you're trying to ProSense Aug 2013 #18
but, you will always have nothing but personal attacks and insults. Cha Aug 2013 #10
How is what you wrote here anything but a personal attack and an insult? Feel free to elaborate. nt Electric Monk Aug 2013 #27
but this gives no credence sigmasix Aug 2013 #4
It's not about ProSense Aug 2013 #6
That's what it is. It's about bringing down the President. Whisp Aug 2013 #22
Exactly right. ProSense Aug 2013 #24
Because snowden and greenwald Cha Aug 2013 #11
Who else here is talking about impeachment? ljm2002 Aug 2013 #7
Are you saying think it's a straw man? ProSense Aug 2013 #8
Who needs trolls when we have DUers like that? nt SunSeeker Aug 2013 #9
DUers like what? ljm2002 Aug 2013 #15
You were the first one to use the term... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #14
No, pure semantics ProSense Aug 2013 #17
Yes an allusion was made... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #19
You're ProSense Aug 2013 #20
Then you should respond to those posters... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #21
Funny I only see you mentioning impeachment. Rex Aug 2013 #16
OWOOGA, HONK, HONK! Fuddnik Aug 2013 #12
Snarf!!! truebrit71 Aug 2013 #23
>:) Hydra Aug 2013 #25
His spirit lives on, in the hearts of the irony impaired Babel_17 Aug 2013 #26
Thanks. Scurrilous Aug 2013 #28

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. If you're trying to
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 11:51 AM
Aug 2013

prove obfuscation, it maybe that you're ignoring the facts. You should read the full point at the snip you posted.



 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
27. How is what you wrote here anything but a personal attack and an insult? Feel free to elaborate. nt
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 05:44 PM
Aug 2013

sigmasix

(794 posts)
4. but this gives no credence
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 01:16 AM
Aug 2013

to the folks looking desperately for confirmation of their religiously held belief that we are all living in a "stasi-like" society that features an almost god-like level of control over all Americans (except the truthers, of course- they'll never be sheeple) So many left and right wing conspiracy theories rely on the same hatred for government and support for paranoid narratives.
OPs like this reveal the simple stupidity and lies of the Hair On Fire brigade- why wont they read any proof that doesn't jibe with their paranoid narratives? Why do they insist it's all lies when the documents don't affirm their pre-conceived ideas about "what is really happening"? I understand the desire to be right, but the proof all points to a much less sinister narrative of spying on Americans than the one promulgated by teabaggers and leftist looney truthers.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
24. Exactly right.
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 01:22 PM
Aug 2013

The conflating of incidents that occured prior to 2009 with those under this administration is deliberate.

On the NSA, this is what happens when reports conflate the Bush and Obama administrations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023471576


ProSense

(116,464 posts)
17. No, pure semantics
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 11:42 AM
Aug 2013

What does this mean when Watergate is being discussed: "I don't want to see the first Black President of the US go down on something this stupid."

Don't pretend that isn't the gist of that entire subthread.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
19. Yes an allusion was made...
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 12:03 PM
Aug 2013

...in another thread, which you proceeded to make explicit. I readily admit that was reasonable, within that thread.

I have to wonder, though, why you brought up the term in this thread? It seems to me you are trying to present opposing viewpoints as being based on a desire to impeach the President, for which I have seen no evidence. One poster, in one thread, does not count as evidence -- except for that poster.

Perhaps you should consider your tactics more carefully. You're planting the idea in this thread, when there was no need to do so. It's kind of like telling kids not to put beans in their ears: it isn't really useful, and it gives them an idea they may not have had before. Next thing you know, you have to call the doctor because your kid has a bean stuck in his ear.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. You're
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 12:15 PM
Aug 2013

"I have to wonder, though, why you brought up the term in this thread? It seems to me you are trying to present opposing viewpoints as being based on a desire to impeach the President, for which I have seen no evidence. One poster, in one thread, does not count as evidence -- except for that poster."

...going to pretend it was "one" poster? My point, which still stands, is that there are people implying that impeachment maybe in order.

This has been ongoing for the last two months.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022960646

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
21. Then you should respond to those posters...
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 12:21 PM
Aug 2013

...rather than use an OP to bring it up yourself, IMO. My objection is twofold: 1 - your bringing it up in an OP merely makes it a more visible proposition; and 2 - your OP tends to imply there is a large number of posters here who are calling for impeaching President Obama, which is not the case.

But you can of course do what you want. You answered my question; I was unaware that people were bringing it up. Again, speaking for myself, impeachment is the last thing on my mind in all of this.

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
12. OWOOGA, HONK, HONK!
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 03:55 AM
Aug 2013

All damage control parties head to the starboard side bilges! All damage control parties report to the starboard side bilges!

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
25. >:)
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 01:22 PM
Aug 2013

+1000

Pro missed that part at the end:

The Obama administration referred all questions for this article to John DeLong, the NSA’s director of compliance, who answered questions freely in a 90-minute interview. DeLong and members of the NSA communications staff said he could be quoted “by name and title” on some of his answers after an unspecified internal review. The Post said it would not permit the editing of quotes. Two days later, White House and NSA spokesmen said that none of DeLong’s comments could be quoted on the record and sent instead a prepared statement in his name. The Post declines to accept the substitute language as quotations from DeLong. The statement is below.


We're in the no spin zone, folks!!

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
26. His spirit lives on, in the hearts of the irony impaired
Fri Aug 16, 2013, 01:32 PM
Aug 2013
I would apologize to the Post

We would all have to say that mistakes were made in terms of comments.

This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.

If my answers sound confusing, I think they are confusing because the questions are confusing and the situation is confusing.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Ziegler#Notable_quotes



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NSA statements to The Pos...