Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not focused on the core issue.
It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case.
You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans?
If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administrations to enable spying to protect national security.". It's the primary function of the NSA.
Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant.
> holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me"
For what it's worth though, I do think the lowly "average Joe" you mention does deserve to be quite irate about his fourth amendment rights being thrown away.
This is not true. The system will not allow you to just query a US Person, and will automatically flag such requests for review if you try to do so. Even if an analyst conducted "reverse targeting" (Querying a foreign person who the US Person was communicating with), the US Person's information within the intercept(s) is automatically minimized and specific approval would be needed to de-anonymize it, including solid proof that the US Person was actually acting as a foreign adversary, such as a spy.
I have no ability to argue that there is not a conspiracy involving multiple people in NSA approving these and OGC turning a blind eye to it and the senate intel committee ignoring it and so on, that is not impossible I suppose, but the reality is very far from simply having the ability to go ahead and wiretap Trump with ease.
> and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant.
There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI"). This is good, because if you do believe that something awry is going on, you can push for a very specific cause: Put together an independent committee of representatives, have them go through the security clearance process (for those who have not already done so) to be read-in on any necessary SCI compartments to review the data, and conduct a thorough investigation regarding the audit trails of any query regarding Trump and/or associates. I personally find this to be far-fetched, but it is at least a tangible action which you and anyone who shares the belief can push for.
What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?
Assuming you have knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work:
- Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
- Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
- Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I do not have a belief one way or another about whether Trump was "wiretapped". My intent was to apply the logical consequence of the Snowden revelations to the issue being discussed, and flag the FISA warrant argument as a straw man.
He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. This is why you don't see raw intelligence from his leaks.
From my own experiences working at the agency, GP is correct in that very few people can task FISA data.
I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself.
My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on.
Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other instances of large caches of leaked material suggest that there are not effective internal controls.
As a thought experiment, I'd suggest that the small size of teams required to maintain security, combined with a 'need to know' rule, results in an environment where creating an internal audit trail puts operational security at risk, and so it is avoided. All the anti-Trump leaks suggest that this is true, since surely Trump would have asked who had access to the leaked information, and the list would have been small enough (b/c of need-to-know) that he could have made a spectacle of the leaker.
This is your impression because it's the impression people want you to have.
Well, putting aside the observation that the documents speak for themselves, and ignoring the inaccurate claims made by leaders to the American people about surveillance, what impression should I have?
Personally, even if I disagree with most of what he did, I think that specifically was an understandable move as he seemed to be genuine about his beliefs and desire to spread his message.
I do think it's troubling that major news orgs won't go near the details.
I think he was not really telling the truth. And I don't mean that he intended to be dishonest, but rather, he was trying to explain the issue as he understood it in a simplified manner. My understanding is that he did not actually have access to XKEYSCORE and other tools, so he did not known how they actually worked and the associated red tape. He could only go by what the presentation slides that he downloaded from NSA had said (I am assuming that those slides did not describe much regarding the associated red tape because it was meant for those who had already been read in and had access to the program so they would have already been fully aware of the legal and compliance side of things, along with continuous training and review of the Constitution). Snowden had to get the materials regarding programs he didn't have access to by authenticating with the smartcard/PKI of colleagues who did have access to those systems (Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/NSA_Snowden_...).
> Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
NSA. I don't think there would be another agency with access to this alleged wiretap.
> Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
I am not certain. I do believe it is the case though, as my understanding is that DoD and IC IG have this authority not specifically NSA (If you are aware of an agency not properly protecting USPI as they should be, the IC IG would definitely want to hear about it, I am very serious).
> Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I am not aware of any, so definitely cannot conclude that they do not exist. There could possibly be a case to be made there, as the "data" versus "metadata" debate awhile back demonstrated that some things are interpreted in a way that could allow for overreach. I personally don't think it is productive to assume that loopholes were utilized until there is evidence of that. Additionally, any loophole would be for accessing the information but the way the system is setup at least these days would not allow for that to occur without an audit trail ("tag the people, tag the data!").
> the FISA warrant argument
If I understand correctly, the following still could have happened and I don't know if anyone has disputed it:
1. Trump associate spoke to someone who was subject to FISA collection or regular collection of a foreign target of interest.
2. Topic was discussed which specifically related to the US Person (Trump associate) which was serious enough to warrant de-minimization of the USPI.
3. The proper process was followed, and the evidence was solid enough to de-minimize the US Person's side of the conversation.
This interestingly would mean that (1) it was serious enough to warrant de-minimization but not enough to be conclusive proof of malice, which is something that anti-Trump folks would not want to hear, and (2) it was a discussion of interest involving an intelligence collection target, which is something that pro-Trup folks would not want to hear. Therefore this potential exact scenario is not within the interest of either side and I have not heard it discussed much.
There are many possibilities, some which are politically convenient to either side, others which are not convenient to either side. It might be mildly amusing to discuss but as far as I understand, an actual investigation into this is going to occur and either we will get answers to all of this based on a comprehensive audit of those who accessed the intercepts and/or was responsible for the tasking.
One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump.
It seems plausible that since Obama was willing to impose last-minute sanctions on Russia and expel diplomats only weeks before leaving office, his administration might have also been pressured into explicitly investigating allegations of improper association between Trump and Russia via surveillance.
If such an investigation had been initiated and turned up any damning evidence, it is quite likely Trump would not have been sworn in as president.
I interpret Obama's willingness to impose sanctions and expel diplomats as an indication of how much pressure he was under to use his power to intervene in what was viewed by many as the effective rigging of an election.
I am not a Trump supporter, so I don't make this point in defense of Trump, merely as a possible indication of the amount of pressure Obama was under in his final days in office.
However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party.
But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it.
Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.
No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges.
>If there had been evidence
There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
>For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty
He was still president and doing his job. Had we been attacked militarily, it's doubtful that anyone would advocate that he await Trump to respond.
The attack on our electoral process was no less destructive in the eyes of those of us who value our democracy.
This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.
I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy.
But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.
This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements.
> not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.
This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.
My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence.
The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government.
In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out?
One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over.
It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.
> My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence.
This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.
True. I think it's very important in situations like this to recall how the alleged evidence for the Iraq war turned out not to exist. The methods used by intelligence agencies are far from infallible.
And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable.
Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.
I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east.
All that was needed, as HRC was days away from being sworn in, was the right triggering event. I think HRC's team began the high intensity Russia-blaming while still under the impression that HRC would be commander in chief very soon.
On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Russia's rhetoric and posturing at the time. And, also the fact that they'd already invaded a sovereign nation.
Instead, you've managed to turn it all around to paint those in the U.S. who expressed concern over Russia's agression as the actual aggressors.
And you've combined that stance with intense scrutiny of U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior.
Now, why is that?
I think this statement needs to be flushed out a bit to understand the absurdity of it. What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it, other than a series of PR stunts intended to keep everyone distracted.
>ignoring Russia's rhetoric
What rhetoric are you referring to?
> confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response
What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid? Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism".
There will be a situation where a hack or computer virus unleashed against US interests triggers retaliation in the form of missiles. I think this is going to happen sooner rather than later. The US would rather this happen sooner to avoid a messy ethical debate and the associated delays.
Just as it took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam to the point where GWB asking that he step down and being refused seemed like justification for missiles and bombs, it will take a while to create enough consent among the US public to allow our leaders to send strikes in retaliation for hacking.
Right now, vague Russian meddling is our "training wheels" phase. We're meant to be indignant, and to align against Russia. The next time there won't be as much vagueness and there will be more obvious harm (not just embarrassment).
Leaders of democracies are shackled by the need to convince the people that war is necessary. The widespread apathy that helps our leaders in most cases turns against them when it comes to warmaking, and a lot of effort must be undertaken to turn us against a foe to the point where we'd sacrifice anything.
Drone wars, and other relatively inexpensive, indirect war methods are a way to maintain apathy while still projecting force, but an adversary like Russia is powerful enough that techniques like this won't work and the public will have to be engaged and will have to consent.
I'm not arguing that this hawkish, war-making stance is against US interests. I'm not making a claim about that.
LOL. That would make you the only person on the planet in that category. Whatever your value judgment of the actors, it's completely disingenous to just pretend there are no patterns.
>What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid?
Seriously? Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking? I could reply further, but I'm trying to stick to things that actually happened vs. imaginary scenarios.
And, in all of this, you keep advocating that it's the U.S.'s responsibility to simply stand down.
>Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism".
You contradicted your previous statement by now asserting that there actually is a difference that requires propaganda to conflate.
>took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam
You keep invoking that. FWIW, I and many other Americans disagreed with the Iraq war. That doesn't mean we now believe that we should let any adversary undermine our democracy and attack us with impunity. You don't seem to appreciate the difference.
Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do.
>We're meant to be indignant
Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.
You seem to completely underestimate the resolve of average Americans when aroused. The disinformation campaign has some off-balance. That won't last.
The only pattern is this: Trump says something outrageous and gets the media focused on what he said. This continues until he says another outrageous thing, attracting attention at will. He's like a human teasing a cat with a bamboo pole with a piece of yarn attached.
I don't assume any motive other than to control media attention. GWB used this technique when Rumsfeld said various outrageous things (such as about torture), and WJC used the technique effectively during his scandals.
What is Trump's motive? Certainly his remarks during the campaign about wanting better relations with Russia were intended to stir the pot, not to (stupidly) telegraph some sort of quid-pro-quo with the Russian government.
> Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking?
I am not making the claim as my own view, simply stating that one of the objectives of all this is to get Americans to take cyber warfare seriously. The likely scenario for cyber attacks are surprise attacks on infrastructure that will not be easy to attribute blame for, so the public must be ready to suspect the likely foes so that consent for military action can be granted in a timely fashion.
> Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do.
This is a silly comment. Of course Americans want America to be successful. I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US has had toward Russia which, if it is in fact part of Russia's strategy, the election meddling fits into, as does the vilification of Russia.
> Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.
Yet in this case the "attack" simply revealed one of our pols to be a bit more corrupt and dishonest than anyone realized. It's hard to say whether this actually harmed the US. FWIW the closure of the Clinton foundation after donations dried up following the scandal suggest that it was a gray market campaign finance scheme.
> Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.
I figured you represented the right-wing view, and yes, the American right is very hawkish about Russia.
LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete and it's not just his public rhetoric, but backchannel nods that were not intended to be revealed for public shock or otherwise, and favorable RNC platform changes and beyond.
And, all of this in the context of Russian election interference, designed to rig the election in his favor. He long-denied that rigging, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, even he was finally forced to admit the intelligence agencies had it right. Still, here you are.
Sorry. Real things happened that can't be dismissed as pot-stirring rhetoric.
>not to (stupidly) telegraph
One would think it would be stupid, but then, here you are trying to shill for him in spite of it.
>I am not making the claim as my own view...
In one sense, that's probably the most accurate thing you've said.
But, you seem to have thoroughly confused yourself here vis-a-vis your original asinine assertion, which was that Clinton likely would have responded militarily to Russia's election-meddling. Now, you're throwing in stuff about later cyber-attacks on infrastructure, etc. that would precipitate such a response. BTW, that "Clinton would have started WW3" rhetoric is exactly the fear-mongering coming out of Russia during the campaign. Funny how you are in complete lock-step with Russian propaganda.
>I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US...
I don't. I just look at what's happening now.
Most Americans actually want an investigation. But, even those who don't aren't so starkly anti-American/pro-Russian as you.
>This is a silly comment
I would say more corny than silly, but I just wanted to help you understand how most Americans feel about our country, since you don't seem to be familiar with that.
>I figured you represented the right-wing view
By "right-thinking", I meant correct or clear, not politically right. It's a figure-of-speech. I'm hardly a hawk. But, the real question is what are you, exactly?
Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down. Obama did not view Russia as a threat and took significant criticism from those who did. The factions cross party lines. Rubio is vehemently (absurdly) anti-Russia, as is McCain. McCain called for escalation, perhaps military action when Russia invaded the Caucuses and Crimea. HRC shares McCain's and Rubio's stance on Russia. Trump apparently shares Obama's and during the campaign indicated he would likely be even more open to normalized relations with Russia.
Note that Trump has reversed course on many (if not the majority) of his campaign promises. He is very unlikely to consider any policy that would alter the balance of power between US, NATO and Russia.
The issue is that because the US has not been able to keep Putin in check, the balance of power is shifting in Russia's advantage. Putin would happily drag the US into a proxy war in Syria and a proxy war in Iran. Trump is taking the bait on Iran, HRC took the bait on Syria.
No matter which proxy war the US gets into, Putin gains strength.
The US did not act to stop Putin's aggression in Crimea or the Caucuses and even hawks like McCain and HRC realize it is probably too late to prevent the inevitable rise of Russia relative to a struggling Europe. Trump may or may not realize this yet. I think his campaign rhetoric was mainly a PR strategy and has little bearing on the policy the US actually follows during his time in office.
As Europe struggles, Russia will seek to re-align with former Soviet bloc nations and offer favorable trade options, etc. The US does not have the will or the resources to thwart this, and by not intervening over the past few years, the US has sent a message to those nations that it does not have their back.
HRC and McCain realize that the longer the US waits, the harder it will be to threaten Russia militarily. Obama's sanctions were the last arrow in the quiver. Russia is in no hurry now that the momentum is in Russia's favor.
HRC did everything possible to send the message to Putin that the US would engage fully in Syria and not put up with anything. But what will the US do besides spend 10x or 100x what Russia spends in a Syrian nation building disaster? Meanwhile, Russia makes inroads into Iran and works the other angle.
It's important to keep in mind that the reason the US invaded Iraq was mainly to get there before Russia did. During the Soviet era, the Iran/Iraq war left the region vulnerable, and after the Soviet Union fell there was a period when the US didn't really worry too much about it. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait offered the US an excuse to project power there, but before long Russian firms had trillions of dollars worth of oil extraction contracts in Iran and Iraq, and Russia was on track to gain undue influence in the region, since there was no actual loyalty to the US.
GWB invaded Iraq and took the first step, and he snubbed Russia by restricting the spoils only to firms from coalition countries. This was basically stealing from Russian firms and giving the loot to coalition countries, all in the name of the "freedom" of the Iraqi people.
Soon it became clear that the US was over-extended in the middle east. The American public was tired of the costly wars, and the idea that the US was able to successfully nation build and bring freedom was becoming more and more obviously hollow.
So Russia focused on aligning with Assad and with Iran. Obama tried to prevent the situation in Iran using a carrot, HRC wanted to prevent the situation in Syria with a ground war.
The key point is that Trump will be forced to take a stance on both of these and it is fairly unlikely that he'll act in a way that benefits Russia over the medium term. European nations have a lot of influence in the US, and most do not want a more powerful Russia.
We don't know how far along the path of brinksmanship a US hawk would take us, but Trump is navigating to ward the brink with Iran. If there is a coherent policy taking shape, he might try to make a deal with Russia allowing Russia's influence in Syria to continue, but he's just as likely to renege on the arrangement as Putin is, so I don't think it really changes the strategic equilibrium or the inevitable transformation Russia into a power having clout that is a bit closer to the level it has known for most of European history.
That proposition treats the decades since the wall came down as static, without any action or directional policy shifts in Russia, U.S. or the world. You later acknowledge, without truly accounting for, dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and direct attacks on U.S. democracy.
And, certainly, you don't expect anyone to believe that Trump and Obama share the same position with regard to Russia or, for that matter, that Trump's position (including rhetoric and concessions) are like those held by any serious U.S. official in that sphere. Whatever you think of their "hawkishness", HRC, McCain, etc. aren't the odd ones here. Your guy is.
In general, your recounting of recent history and your purported estimation of Trump's position and future intent leaves out an entire universe of conspicuously related facts; thus your conclusions are just wrong. Sprinkling in somehwat cogent nods to a few facets of the current geopolitical situation does nothing to obscure this.
I'm not defending Trump. His campaign strategy was to say somewhat ludicrous things and then when challenged, double down on them, thus amplifying the PR impact. To be quite clear, for every person who socially shared an article slamming one of Trump's ridiculous statements, perhaps 90% of their friends agreed, but the message also reached the 10% who approved of Trump's approach, or saw in it evidence he was not part of the establishment.
While I abhor Trump's approach of appealing to the worst parts of human nature (bigotry, fear, etc.) to rally support, it's sadly a very common technique used by politicians. HRC at one point in her career called for a "physical barrier" between the southern US and Mexico, and focused her talking points on "criminal aliens". Yes, HRC was playing to fear and bigotry when she said those things, just as Trump was when he called for a wall and described immigrants as "rapists". Trump brought a new level of crassness to something that had existed before but was spoken about in tones of moderation even though the intended audience read between the lines and found (and was animated by) the bigotry.
> you don't expect anyone to believe that Trump and Obama share the same position with regard to Russia
This is not the point of my comment. What I meant was that no president really has the power to dramatically shift US policy toward Russia, there are too many interest groups involved. The two main factions, those who are willing to accommodate Russia's adolescent mischief (led by strong man Putin taking the country for an authoritarian joy ride), and those who wish to send a signal that it will not be tolerated.
We've had 8 years of the former, during which time Putin has had quite a joy ride. Trump is inclined to let it continue, while HRC would likely have tried to put a stop to it one way or another. It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump in terms of policy. The revelations about alleged Russian meddling date back to July 2016, and according to the article you linked, it was known about for years prior. Yet Obama declined to impose sanctions, preferring instead some sort of back-channel communication (if any response at all).
Obama's decision to impose sanctions two weeks before the end of his term was likely a nod to the prevailing Democratic Party view, which Obama had not attempted to shape during the campaign. He had to be loyal to his party, and likely did the least consequential thing he could, sent a few people home and imposed sanctions that would be awkward for Trump to remove, etc.
So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric (as I think it is wise to ignore most of what politicians say, and instead focus on what they do), he is staying the course 100% with Obama's policy. Let's wait until there is actual policy change before concluding that he feels differently. We've seen him do a 180 on so many other campaign promises since taking office, why should Russia be any different?
> dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine
US policy on this matter was set by president Obama and the congress at the time. The relevant before picture and after picture (in terms of US policy) have nothing to do with Trump unless he actually drives a policy change. There was a minority (including McCain, HRC, etc.) who harshly criticized Obama's inaction. This minority has become very vocal of late, and has attracted many HRC partisans to the chorus, but there is not really evidence that a majority of congress holds this view. Notably, the members of the GOP who are most vehement are the ones whose own opportunism calculus dictates that vocally calling out Trump on the issue suits their own personal objectives.
From a game theoretic perspective, I think the hawks may be right, though I personally hope we find a more peaceful, trade-driven equilibrium. I've worked with various Ukrainian and Russian software engineers before, and they are all nice, reasonable people who do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.
Sure, you're defending him, by normalizing it through false moral equivalence. You can't say Trump has done anything wrong without invoking HRC, GWB, or someone else. That also happens to be a well-known Russian propaganda technique.
>So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric
Again, it has already gone beyond rhetoric, which I've noted exhaustively, including the RNC platform change. And, ignoring what he says is not wise in any case, as it sets the stage for policy. Further, contrary to what you state, he has not done "a 180 on so many other campaign promises".
>This is not the point of my comment... It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump
These two statements contradict, and the latter points back to your previous post that attempted to conflate Trump's position on Russia with Obama's. In fact, they couldn't be more different. Start with the biggest: sanctions.
>do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.
More propaganda in lock-stop with Russian fear-mongering. As if the choices are a.) defer to and appease Russia or b.) nuclear holocaust. And again, in your view, Russia never has responsibility in any of it. Invade countries, attack democratic processes, etc. And, the onus is on the U.S. to simply try to find some "trade equilibrium".
You should consider being more open about what you really believe. If you think you're in the right, then there's really no need to dissemble and hide. You just lose credibility. Just make your case in the open and people can process it on the merits. As it is, you repeatedly contradict yourself and morph positions, and much of what you write is demonstrably false.
So, feel free to continue solo with your walls of words.
Here's some reading material that you missed:
https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE...
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html
https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack-fancy-be...
> One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over.
Or that he wanted to delegitimize the Clinton presidency.
> It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.
Nonsense. Increased economic sanctions are more effective against Russia's failing petroeconomy.
I think it goes without saying that Russia engages in mischief around the world in ways that hinder the US, and the US does the same to Russia.
Nothing about this is a sudden, triggering event that calls for military strikes (as McCain has called them an "act of war").
The notable aspect of all this is not that it happened, but that it is being framed with the same "we must unseat Saddam immediately" urgency that we have seen before when warmongers try to manipulate our judgment.
A lot of people risked their lives to end the cold war. I can think of few things more irresponsible than fanning the flames of a minor incident to the point where someone like McCain is calling for military retaliation (which he effectively did).
It could be argued that a stronger bluff was needed against Russia over the Caucuses or Crimea, but that ship has sailed and the opportunity was lost. We can count on US hawks to try to turn any event into a trigger, but that doesn't mean it is a big deal or that it represents a threat to US national security.
They absolutely did implicate Russia. Read them again.
The rest of your post is bloviating about a military escalation that exists only in your mind.
I just read them again. There is clearly a great effort being made to embellish the evidence so that it seems like state actor caliber work.
I think we can safely assume that the US and Russia conduct steady amounts of mischief toward each-other, and that it's largely out of the public view. Some of it likely includes hacking attempts, etc.
But the very documents you link say that while the groups in question were not previously linked to the Russian government, there is suddenly reason to believe they are (namely the release of the DNC emails).
So for some reason previous JARs had not felt it worthwhile to speculate about state actors being involved, suddenly this link to the Russian state became the most relevant aspect. Hmm.
I think it's quite plausible that Russia pays several groups of hackers a few million dollars a year to conduct mischief. For all we know the US pays similar (or even the same) groups to do mischief.
We're told that there is an arbitrary code execution vulnerability that was responsible for the DNC hack, but we're also told that a user fell victim to a phishing email. While both might be true, which of these pieces of evidence can we attribute to the DNC hack?
It was revealed previously that the server at the DNC was not patched and was likely vulnerable for many months. Any number of actors could have gained access to it, installed rootkits, etc.
With all the leaks and embarrassing revelations coming out about US intelligence agencies, I think it's best to remain highly skeptical of any information revealed that has a political impact.
A few months ago people were angry that James Comey handed the election to Donald Trump, now the same people are certain that the best explanation for the DNC email leaks is a Russian state-sponsored attack.
The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Sure, Russia probably has a constant mischief campaign (as does, quite likely, the US), but within 24 hours of the DNC email leaks there were loud accusations of Russian involvement before Crowdstrike had done any analysis.
Reading the actual emails reveals an organizational culture that was extremely technically inept and that did not take it security seriously at all.
To put this in perspective, any serious state actor would have owned a vulnerable server being used by a major US political figure within hours after the server became vulnerable, and no trail would have been left. US intelligence warned the HRC about the vulnerable server multiple times because the US, a state actor, is on top of it.
How difficult is it to periodically scan the list of a few hundred IP addresses used by top officials for known vulnerabilities. This is by far the most plausible explanation for how a state actor would handle the situation.
If anything the FancyBear group and other similar groups are just hackers for hire who periodically sell some results to the Russian government.
I think it's important to consider that if you have the budget of a state actor you don't do many of the things that are used as evidence in this narrative.
You very clearly didn't read them before this when you said there was no evidence other than that Russia might want to meddle in the election, and from your post, it seems unlikely you read them "again" just now. The hacks used implants that were only ever used by the respective groups, which had only targeted organizations that the Russian government was pursuing and were known to be RIS groups by multiple security firms long before the DNC attack even happened. The implants were dropped through spearphishing campaigns with forms hosted on known RIS infrastructure.
> within 24 hours of the DNC email leaks there were loud accusations of Russian involvement before Crowdstrike had done any analysis
The FBI had notified the DNC of the intrusion with attribution long before the emails were leaked to the public. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hac...
> US intelligence warned the HRC about the vulnerable server multiple times because the US, a state actor, is on top of it.
HRC had nothing to do with the compromised DNC server, so US intelligence wouldn't have warned her and did not. Where are you getting this ridiculous assertion from?
So you're arguing that if you were state sponsored intelligence agency and you were using a crude technique that could be easily detected, that you'd only target organizations that your state had obvious strategic interest in?
Your assertion fails a test of reasonableness for several reasons. The most obvious of which is that since there are thousands of Nigerians doing the same kind of phishing campaigns, so there would be no tactical reason not to include a large number of randomly generated email addresses or email addresses from other hacked lists.
One obvious example is the Stratfor dump. Who were Stratfor's subscribers? Largely members of government agencies, large institutions, etc. Any hacking group would have had access to all of the emails in the dump, as well as other publicly available caches of email addresses.
Also, if you were a state actor wishing to conduct a phishing campaign like the one we're discussing, why would you dispatch it from the Ukraine? Even the links you sent claim it's quite unusual for the sender address of a phishing email to be the same as the one registered to the domain, but this fact is not deemed worthy of consideration.
So we're now down to three main possibilities: Either the state actor in question is extremely amateurish and careless, or it wasn't a state actor, or it was a state actor intending to lay a misleading trail.
My point is simply that it's very presumptuous to jump to the conclusion that it was definitely a state actor and definitely Russia.
The article you linked would perhaps be somewhat trustworthy if it were not the case that the NYT had a clear intent on helping HRC's candidacy and has been one of the chief supporters of propaganda about Russia. I consider the NYT to be America's own Pravda.
The article contains assertions that are not accompanied by data. We're told that one of the DNC's computers was "phoning home" to "Russia" but there is sadly no reason to believe this or any of the other information in the article.
I'd also add that due to the NYT's very poor adherence to journalistic best-practices and basic professionalism during the campaign, reading an article like that makes me doubt the truthfulness of the claims even more than I would have without reading it.
While there are a few good reporters left at the NYT, the paper has a set of propaganda goals that often take precedence over truthful reporting and real journalism. This is deeply saddening to me, as I would hope that our nation would have at least one reputable large news organization.
FWIW I'm horrified that Trump won the election, and did not expect him to, but I would also have been horrified (though less so) if HRC had won. We can do so much better.
It is clear from the rest of your comments that your perception of the world is divorced from reality, that no matter how many reports from the FBI and private security firms confirm the Russian link with none saying otherwise, you believe you know better. There was nothing horrifying about HRC.
I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the specific purview of all agencies, however, the united front represented the intelligence community coalescing around this finding.
And, you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?
>But it all rests on trusting the agencies
No. It actually doesn't. You look at all of the other evidence and ask whether the agencies' explanation is plausible in that context. The strange affinty that Trump has for Putin, the inexplicable modification of key RNC platform elements in favor of Putin, the telegraphing of lifting sanctions, the connections and contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the lying about said contacts, the entire Wikileaks operation, and on and on.
Via raw common sense alone, it is actually difficult to believe any other conclusion except that found by our intelligence agencies. What are you suggesting, that we instead believe Russian denials? Or that we believe some conspiracy theory that HRC was directing the intelligence agencies or they otherwise went rogue to elect her by making up a conclusion that happened to make perfect sense, and which many observers had already reached?
Of course! After the multi-Trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq I absolutely think that the raw evidence for grandiose claims about foreign threats must be disclosed without artifice to the people.
We learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that our leaders classified information not to protect people or methods but to hide aspects of the war effort from the American people. This is a high and vicious crime, and nobody was held accountable for it.
You are advocating placing blind trust in people who have not only been wrong, but have been intentionally wrong in an attempt to mislead and misdirect us.
> Via raw common sense alone,
The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply comnon sense when the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced by people who want a specific outcome.
I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle in the election or any making any specific claim about Russia, just making the point that common sense is not something we can rely on, and so our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions with a nuclear power.
Nope. I stated the opposite: that all of the evidence already pointed us in this direction. No blind trust required.
>The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply common sense
Ah, yes, the ol' "who ya' gonna trust, me or your lyin' eyes?" defense. Sorry, I prefer that my fellow Americans leave our eyes and brains switched on. We really need them these days, what with the shills and propagandists running rampant.
>the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced
The landscape of facts to which many of us are referring don't require quotes and include the otherwise inexplicable words out of Trump's mouth, coupled with his actions, removal of key parts of the RNC platform in Russia's favor, secret connections with his aides and the subsequent lying and admissions, etc. We know enough as irrefutable fact without relying on our intelligence agencies. Odd that you suggest we ignore it all.
>I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle...our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions
This argument comes straight out of Trump's mouth and makes no sense. It's essentially an argument for encouraging any adversary who wishes to extract concessions from us to simply attack us.
And, where else do we advocate responding to direct attacks with kindness? Where else do we advocate not holding aggressors responsible and instead to appease or "de-escalate", as you put it? Indeed the normally bellicose Trump himself has inexplicably treated our allies far less favorably than a foreign aggressor. Now, why is that?
> And, where else do we advocate responding to direct attacks with kindness? Where else do we advocate not holding aggressors responsible and instead to appease or "de-escalate", as you put it? Indeed the normally bellicose Trump himself has inexplicably treated our allies far less favorably than a foreign aggressor. Now, why is that?
This is the argument George W. Bush made about Iraq and why it was necessary to overthrow Saddam.
> Odd that you suggest we ignore it all. > Ah, yes, the ol' "who ya' gonna trust, me or your lyin' eyes?" defense
I think it depends on what you consider evidence. If you can't imagine renting a VPS in Ukraine and running some scripts on it, I suppose the evidence is convincing.
Nope. Just the facts.
>This is the argument George W. Bush made about Iraq
"Because, Iraq" is not a magical dismissal for everything the U.S. does forevermore. It's possible (and sensible) to disagree with the Iraq War and Russian attacks on our democracy. In fact, that's where most Americans stand.
>If you can't imagine renting a VPS in Ukraine and running some scripts
Yeah, that or the 400lb guy in his basement makes more sense than what the U.S. intelligence agencies concluded.
But, AGAIN, ignore the agencies and just look at Trump's counterintuitive, but consistent behavior.
What behavior? I read a few more articles on this and unless Trump is very stupid this is NOT the way he'd strengthen Russia at the expense of the US.
If he wanted to do that he'd likely just do it behind the scenes, not appoint a cabinet full of people on the payroll of Russia :)
The specific big case which the public knows about would be the domestic telephony metadata collection. Nobody knows about the discussions related to this or any pushback, or how exactly this was deemed to be a legal practice, and so on. This looks very bad as it causes the assumption to be that there is no proper oversight rather than seeing this as a bad interpretation.
Instead of the learned helplessness and assumptions about NSA, it would probably be far better to have an aggressive push for declassified briefings regarding these kinds of decisions. After the Snowden leaks I recall ODNI declassified and published a good amount of documentation in order to demonstrate the IC"s side of the matter, so it is known that declassification reviews for very sensitive subjects can occur when they put ample resources into it. The IC is very sensitive regarding sources and methods, so that's why most declassified information usually comes from FOIAs and specific "IC On The Record" releases. If they would declassify and publicize information regarding these decisions, there can at least be more of a dialogue on the topic using concrete facts versus assumptions.
Could you elaborate on what practices you precisely take issue with?
If it is regarding domestic telephony metadata collection, I am in agreement and I am glad that the USA Freedom Act restricted that. Otherwise, I don't really know how to answer you as you haven't stated any specific problem that you have.
Additionally, I'm not so sure my reply is that great of a defense, I am only stating facts because I do not believe that spreading misconceptions is very helpful to discussion on this kind of topic.
This is an interesting point. Over the past few years I've come to think that the most responsible perspective to adopt as a citizen is that officials and government are all, to some extent, bad actors who deserve a good measure of scrutiny and accountability.
The biggest breakdown in the democratic process has been a lack of appreciation on the part of the public for all that we consent to by not actively dissenting and demanding answers and accountability.
Frankly, the response by officials to the Snowden revelations was deeply embarrassing to our nation.
I agree. I don't intend to defend anything problematic. I just worry that it will be hard to demand actual changes if people are concerned about vague issues driven by a misunderstanding of how things work, versus actually being able to call up their representatives with specific changes and demands in mind.
> Frankly, the response by officials to the Snowden revelations was deeply embarrassing to our nation.
I think this was due to the amount of material he leaked. If it was only the metadata-related material or other material related to problematic practices, I would think there would be far more leniency. But because he had taken and leaked everything he could get his hands on, much of it unrelated to anything domestic, the disclosures were viewed very differently. I personally think it makes no sense to charge him with relation to the leaks regarding domestic metadata collection since it was already admitted that this was overreach, but it is hard to figure out why he would blindly copy and leak other sensitive unrelated material (Easy example: I do not understand how he justifies scraping the content of certain internal wiki pages and giving it to The Intercept, there are no injustices described there, just legitimate sensitive intelligence information).
I'm less concerned with Snowden's treatment than with the way that our leaders dealt with the revelation that crimes had been committed in the excessive collection of data.
In my opinion, at least a few senior intelligence officials should have faced prison time, several more should have stepped down, and we should have seen full details disclosed about the problematic programs and seen the technology infrastructure get dismantled.
But we saw nothing like this. President Obama pretended nothing had happened and things just continued on pretty much the way they had been.
The key point is that the surveillance programs Snowden revealed are illegal, criminal programs and there is zero accountability for those whose misdeeds and lies led to the programs.
While I have no doubt that the vast majority of intelligence agency employees are honest, law-abiding people, I am not comfortable with a massive surveillance system being built behind closed doors with no democratic oversight. The stakes are just too high.
I have a number of friends who work in government and I wonder whether they feel comfortable expressing their honest opinions about the programs since for all we know there is a sentiment analysis being done on the emails, tweets, texts, and phone conversations of all government employees with security clearance.
From the standpoint of preventing crimes by leveraging surveillance and data mining, of course there would be a sentiment analysis system, and the threat level posed by dissenting sentiment would be easy to monitor so that measures could be taken to prevent undesirable occurrences from happening.
Can a democracy exist when there is a massive surveillance system that everyone realizes is lurking behind every web cam and ISP? I'm not sure it can.
We've seen a handful of generals and public officials get destroyed by "leaks" of data that were quite likely obtained via the surveillance infrastructure. This should probably terrify us, but there is very little scrutiny of the methods used, including parallel attribution, and most government claims are taken at face value.
Has the program been replaced? How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture?
What justification exists for such a program to be created without any public debate? Why should we believe that clearly illegal programs don't also exist?
Considering that there is outrage about Trump commenting that he wishes to re-institute a "Muslim watch list", how is a metadata program that is essentially a meta-watchlist about all affiliations, creeds, etc., not expected to be rejected by the public?
Yes. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/29/457779757/...
> How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture?
There was a comment, singular, from a high-level official, singular, denying collection of data on US citizens en masse. There was never surveillance en masse, so any denying that would be completely kosher.
> What justification exists for such a program to be created without any public debate?
Most government programs are created without a public debate, just as most private sector advertising programs are created without a public debate. As long as in-house counsel says it is probably fine, the programs go ahead.
> Why should we believe that clearly illegal programs don't also exist?
We have no way to know for sure, but since no clearly illegal programs existed in the indiscriminate dump provided by Snowden, and since the one program that was questionably legal had plenty of legal documentation in the dumps, we can conclude that it is unlikely that any clearly illegal program exists.
> Considering that there is outrage about Trump commenting that he wishes to re-institute a "Muslim watch list", how is a metadata program that is essentially a meta-watchlist about all affiliations, creeds, etc., not expected to be rejected by the public?
The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security by anonymized ID, which then requires a court order to be deanonymized.
Yes, I know that all agencies have a John Yoo who is ready to write a learned legal argument for why their actions are within the law. This means nothing.
> The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security
Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term. It was only shut down because the metadata program came online and offered a more comprehensive version.
Both programs have the same goal, which is to find threats to national security. Both were created with good intentions in mind. The problem with both, in my opinion, is the potential for abuse.
As I explained, this happens everywhere, not just in government agencies. That is why no reasonable person would have expected a public discussion prior to implementation.
> Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term.
We were discussing the Muslim registry that Trump wanted to implement, which goes far beyond NSEERS. He has at times ramblingly suggested that he wants all Muslims to be registered, not just some foreigners visiting the US as in NSEERS.
Right. Trump stopped calling for this after he was briefed on the metadata program and told "hey we have the best registry you could ever want, no need to call for one, it's already built and at your disposal".
Trump's decision to call for a Muslim registry was born out of the political appeal of saying something that is both commonplace and controversial. Obama wanted a Muslim registry and utilized it for several years as well. Yet when a guy like Trump talks about it he does it in a way that angers people and generates newspaper headlines.
> s I explained, this happens everywhere,
Right, it's a risk mitigation strategy not a law-compliance strategy.
Did you forget that this metadata collection ended? Did you forget that when it was collected, the only way to query it was to find anonymized IDs of contacts to issue court orders to deanonymize? I explained both of these earlier in this very conversation. Or do you think that Trump doesn't understand these nuances and thinks he has the the ability to spy on anybody?
> Obama wanted a Muslim registry and utilized it for several years as well.
Did you forget that NSEERS isn't a Muslim registry but a registry of visiting foreigners from specific dominantly Muslim countries, as I just explained in my previous post, which is different from an actual Muslim registry that Trump has suggested he supports?
> Right, it's a risk mitigation strategy not a law-compliance strategy.
Whatever you call it, this happens everywhere, so it's amazing to me that you would think public debate would be necessary before implementing those programs.
I do not believe this to be the case. We have been reassured multiple times that our agencies are not eavesdropping, etc., yet revelations have continued to emerge that these reassurances have been lies.
> Whatever you call it, this happens everywhere,
The fourth amendment is fairly unique in the world. It (and the first and second amendments) are even unique in the western tradition rooted in English common law. So yes, I know it happens almost everywhere. That does not mean it should happen here.
I'd also comment that there must be a bizarre, un-American cynicism among the people who write things like the "Patriot Act" and the sorts of legal briefs that allow agencies to burn the bill of rights at will. Who are the monsters who want to destroy the few things that could be considered unique cultural and humanitarian achievements of our nation? And why do you defend them!
Did you forget that we have had no evidence that our agencies are eavesdropping despite having access to an indiscriminate drop of data from Snowden?
> The fourth amendment is fairly unique in the world.
As is every single other American law. You have given no justification for why in-house counsel should treat the Fourth Amendment differently from any other Bill of Rights issue. If in-house counsel believes a program's legality can be justified, the program will proceed -- this happens regardless if counsel is retained by a government agency or a private entity.
> And why do you defend them!
I am not defending the authors of the Patriot Act. I am correcting your obscene misconceptions of what programs were actually in place. The programs you thought were in place would be clearly unconstitutional like the sections of the Patriot Act that were struck down in 2007, but the programs that were actually running were not even close to what you have somehow come to imagine.
My biggest issue is the mixing of the NSA's surveillance power with domestic law enforcement.
As for your facts you've made some very loquatious attempts. I'm skeptical as to the actual number of facts contained therein.
> My biggest issue is the mixing of the NSA's surveillance power with domestic law enforcement.
I fully agree. Serious changes are needed here in my opinion and I hope the pressure due to renewal this year will allow for some reform.
Also, do you mean that these are the stated rules, or that these are the practices? I don't mean that in a conspiratorial sense. In any institution, the actual practices vary from the rules, sometimes significantly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act...
https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-v...
We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.
Policy disagreements with Trump aside, I find that actually kind of refreshing.
That's pretty much the whole story of demagoguery and why it continues to work.
Well, if President Trump actually does serve the common people, it will be a wondrous thing.
Where is he doing anything other than furthering his interests?
A demagogue for the common people* !
*only certain people qualifyNowadays we call that populism. And we don't like it one bit! /s
Being honest and informed are much more valuable and refreshing traits to me.
It is kind of refreshing, because while I have a sneaking suspicion that most politicians are secretly despicable people behind their masks, Trump is a despicable person right out there in the open. I know exactly where I stand in relation to him.
No, because at any time Obama could have terminated the process and asked for legislation to dismantle the means.
No, the straw man argument is that we can tell whether Trump was wiretapped by the presence or absence of a FISA warrant.
The president does not sign FISA warrants, the entire purpose of FISA is to streamline (almost to automate) the issuance of warrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
If the office of the president is saying things like "microwaves that turn into cameras," I'm not confident in the president's ability to understand the problem well enough to solve it effectively (nor, and this is small comfort, to take advantage of it effectively).
As a wise man once said, "Anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country." "Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name."
imho this particular case seems like the incoherent ramblings of a nutcase, but bugs hidden in everyday devices are old-school espionage stuff (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) or countless others).
A microwave would be a pretty awesome target for a bug - it can live off the microwave's standby power, and transmit in the 2.4 GHz band when the microwave is operational. The high power usage of the magnetron (and the load-switching voltage spikes) would cover the increased energy demand, and using the 2.4 GHz band prevents it from being detected by bug sweepers (the noise from the microwave will drown out the sweeper).
This is true no matter who is in charge.
> top comment a defense of the sitting president
It is not a defense, but if you perceive it that way you reveal your own bias. It is merely a point about the relevance of a FISA warrant when reasoning about the issue.
> the wielder of such power)
Of course, my caution about the irrelevance of FISA warrants applies equally to the sitting president and to past and future presidents.
> a canard about a mostly-unrelated political scandal
I'm not really sure how to respond to your characterization of the Snowden revelations as a unrelated political scandal. If we're talking about "wiretapping", Snowden revealed that there is a vast power of surveillance that can be wielded by a large number of people with little oversight.
While this does not lend credence to Trump's claims, it does reveal that those rebuking Trump for making the claims based on the lack of a FISA warrant are likely attempting to deceive/misdirect the public about how the apparatus actually works.
Which should have been your clue that you whiffed on the point.
"Obummer tapped my phones!" is the unrelated political scandal. If you don't want to be dinged for derailing the discussion, you could have jumped into a discussion about FISA/DoJ vs. NSA surveillance via any other technique. Instead you chose to go down this ridiculous "See? Trump was right!" rathole. And here we are.
Not at all. I don't care whether Trump was right, but I do care whether we have a system where an audit can be done that can actually provide reassurance that inappropriate surveillance is not being done. Note that I am not arguing that surveillance of Trump (if it occurred) was even inappropriate, since there were widespread concerns about his ties with Russia, and the administration in office at the time had an obligation to provide due diligence.
There has been very little focus on the rule of law and limits to the surveillance state. Trump is not a privacy advocate, but nevertheless his remark made some of the relevant issues around unchecked surveillance timely.
Related fallacy: there is not a standard ratio of people who should fail school tests.
Fair enough, but then one could argue that law enforcement are under-utilizing the powers they ought to have since so many requests are sailing through without impediment.
More directly, looking at the approval rate for FISA requests without also looking at the high approval rate for search warrants is going to cause you to reach nonsensical conclusions. https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-requests-for-a-search-wa...
So you are arguing that search warrants are always rubber stamped?
Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public, there is great pressure on the judge and law enforcement to act properly. No such check exists in the FISA system.
Think about the lax punishment of Brock Turner and all the attention it received. This is because the miscarriage of justice was public knowledge.
Behind closed doors people behave badly. There are numerous examples of this, including reproducible experiments.
No, you're arguing that FISA warrants are rubber-stamped, but if you believe that, you must also believe that search warrants are rubber-stamped, which is the "nonsensical conclusion" I alluded to earlier.
> Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public....
Search warrants and the justification for them are not guaranteed to be public and can be sealed like FISA warrants, and both can and have been unsealed following legal challenge. Therein lies part of your error. The second part of your error is that FISA warrants can only be used to search the records of non-citizen foreigners, who do not have fourth amendment rights, and people who have already been proven to be agents of a foreign power.
Yeah, that's a much higher rejection rate since 2003 than in the 24 previous years the court existed, when zero were denied. So, if the rate of rejections is a valid metric for how good the court is, with fewer rejections being worse, the process got better during the "War on Terror".
However, there is an audit trail in the system. As an investigation will occur on this matter, I am sure that cleared representatives will have access to this for review.
What seems odd to me is that this "investigation" takes more than a few minutes. How is a system that allows easy auditing and checks and balances also the same system that takes weeks or months to determine who accessed specific records.
I think it's unlikely we'll see any raw data. Chances are that if there was any investigation going on into anyone on Trump's team (which we know there was), then those individuals showing up at Trump Tower for a meeting creates a metadata correlation to Trump Tower. Hence Trump's claim of "wiretapping Trump Tower" would seemingly be trivially true if even the simplest metadata link between, say, Flynn and Trump Tower were followed or considered potentially relevant by any analyst.
I agree with regards to viewing the data. But that would imply it was a matter of asking NSA to check the audit trail. With a topic so politically charged, I would hope that they would instead get an independent committee with proper security clearances to get access to the data in their SCIF and be able to ask questions to fully understand each action taken and assure it is all above board. I do not have direct knowledge of how such an investigation would work, but my point is that retrieving the audit trail is probably an easy aspect of a longer process.
But this is precisely what's problematic about the metadata program, it casts a very wide net which deprives many innocent bystanders of their rights.
That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.
Regarding Trump's claim that Trump Tower(?) was tapped, I find it very suspicious that Obama's reaction was a lawyered non-denial-denial relayed by an intermediary. Whenever people are accused of crimes and they do anything other than simply deny it, you should be somewhat suspicious. When they use weasel words or clever phrasing, be suspicious. I predicted Theranos' issues something like 8 months in advance due to this; Elizabeth Holmes never simply said "these reports are wrong because our technology works" (because she knew she would be open to lawsuits after the fact if she said as much). Just my 2 cents; ofcourse nobody knows for sure at this point.
Then you move on to discuss your feeling that Obama wiretapped Trump, based only on the fact that Trump said it and you find the "style" of Obama's denial unconvincing. It doesn't seem to matter one bit that Trump himself offered zero evidence of this claim and is even trying to walk it back.
The short is that you seem to believe whatever fits your personal narrative. Worse, you try to convince others to blindly believe divisive, destructive, nonsensical conspiracy theories without a scintilla of proof.
Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge. One could just as easily say, "I think you're a rapist. Of course, I don't know for sure."
Unchecked disinformation wreaks havoc on democracy. This nonsense is literally destroying our country.
This needs to repeated more!
Thank you internet stranger, your words have lifted my spirits today.
It is that at times. At other times, it is simply something people say when they suspect something but do not know it for sure.
As you can see, this covers the corner case you've identified.
Interestingly, the term citizen wasn't defined until the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
No, he wasn't an immigrant of any sort. He was a native born citizen of one of the states that formed the United States, and one of the leaders of the movement by which they became the United States.
It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.
There is a dispute whether citizenship-by-maternityy is "natural born" under the Constitution (there's an argument that that "natural born" is equivalent to the birthright guarantee of the 14th Amendment, and no decisive case law.)
Would there be any dispute if my wife gave birth while we were on vacation in France?
I suspect that those who really hold to that definition are primarily concerned about the amount of melanin in his skin.Think about it. Your rebuttal is akin to someone asserting that Trump specifically e-mailed Russian political contacts (on no evidence), and me claiming validation of that assertion when it turns out that yes, an e-mail address in Russia was one of 50 million to receive spam mail for Trump's shitty steaks. But it would be ridiculous for me to claim such a walk-back – even though what I just wrote actually happened [1] – because words have meaning.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/th...
I mean, now there's just enough "justification" to conclude that the illegal wiretap may have been done outside of any traceable process--just as you have done. So, Trump just may be right. How do we know?
There is an over-emphasis on what's possible vs. what the actual evidence says. That is the path to a post fact world wherein literally any conspiracy theory can now thrive. At the end of this path lies the complete obliteration of democracy.
This includes abuse of power, but also abuse such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.
From this and your other comments, you undertake a lot of mental gymnastics to let Trump off the hook. And your assertions go well beyond decrying potential abuse by intelligence agencies.
>such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.
Not really. Or, more specifically, only when people willfully use it in a disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt, and others promote that it is a legitimate basis for that doubt. The people behind the most recent Wikileaks dump seem to understand this, wouldn't you agree?
Thinking people still understand that implausible is not the same as actually happened, and that actual proof is required when a president charges a former president with breaking the law.
However this is unacceptable. We are a society of laws, and one of them is due process. Spying likely started during the Bush years, and Obama somehow escaped scrutiny for continuing the program (even with Snowden leaks). Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration, even if merely because the media seems far less tolerant of his transgressions.
I think (hope?) we are all totally on the same page about warrants being necessary. I wouldn't hold your breath about due process coming back under trump, media intolerance hasn't changed a lot. What has is direct legal action on behalf of citizens, from states and agencies like the ACLU. I urge everyone to contribute to the EFF, and the ACLU, and let them, and your state legislature know this is a key issue to you.
If my feeling on warrants match up with the true intention of the law (as it was originally written) then no-knock warrants are suspect as well as any kind of secret warrant to tap your phone/computer.
I think even with warrants we still have an issue, because what's really stopping them from getting a warrant in this day and age?
... and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
The violation of personal rights is allowed, because of specific reason ("probable cause"), in a particular place, limited to specified people or things. These limitations slow down the application of power and (hypothetically) create opportunities to fight back when authority is exceeded.
> no-knock warrants
I suspect those are constitutional when the are properly targeted to a specific event/person/etc. The tactics used to implement the search isn't limited by the warrant.
> secret warrant
That's may be a problem, but it may depend on the specifics.
> what's really stopping them from getting a warrant
Generally nothing, but that's the wrong question. If police are making many requests for specific warrants, that's the warrant system working as intended.
However, playing word games to pretend wiretapping everybody isn't "seizing" data until an agent looks at it is exactly the type of general warrant that is banned by the 4th Amendment.
Almost every no knock is executed in such a way that 'proper' targeting is impossible.
A warrant cannot magically excuse police from their improper conduct. It took a deaf dumb blind and ignorant bench for that.
Due process means both sides get to argue their cases in front of a court. Apple chose to do that [1]. Presumably, the FBI figured it would lose and so dropped the case [2]. Apple contesting an executive branch order in a court is different from directors and employees at the NSA deciding they can act in defiance of our courts and laws.
[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timot...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/28/apple-fbi...
I haven't seen any indication that either party is looking to end these practices. It's hard to shut down "big brother" when it's your turn to play big brother. Furthermore, this doesn't exactly seem the the administration that's likely to dial-back intrusion into people's personal lives:
"U.S. House bill threatens employees with fines if they refuse to undergo genetic testing"
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/03/13/gene...
Hoover was an SOB far worse than McCarthy ever could have been but is still revered by many in the intel services. His name still adorns the FBI HQ building and other than accusations of cross dressing, no ones dug in to truly uncover the evil things that man did.
The fact that there were soviet agents in the government is mostly tangential. It was because he went around saying there's a secret list of enemies, and that anyone who is left of center is probably one of them, that he was so horrible. It was because he made disgusting personal attacks and aired the dirty laundry of anyone who crossed him. It was because of his deep hatred for homosexuals and anyone who wasn't right wing.
He was one of the more vile characters in US history. J. Edgar Hoover was much worse, I'll concede; Hoover was actually a traitor, the worst in US history, and should have been jailed or executed. But McCarthy deserves every bit of tarnishing he gets, and a whole lot more that he doesn't get because people have forgotten.
Hoover didn't know your shoe size. It's likely that the NSA could find that out in seconds to minutes (and I'm not kidding).
Are you insane?? Didn't you hear many of Trump speeches saying that NSA doesn't have enough power??? And that we need to monitor more, especially certain groups but pretty much everyone as well?
And that companies like Apple should be forced to decrypt or have tools to decrypt their own technology.
Bush made surveillance wanted by public fear because of 911. Obama made it further legal by not doing anything against it and praising NSA as "your friendly neighbor". Trump is here to make it more invasive and to make it stay for good!
It got worse during the Bush administration, but government surveillance isn't a new thing.
Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration
Not sure if serious
The fight against apathy is unforgiving, relentless, and it only works in small doses. As long as the masses have their opiate of choice nothing will ever change.A couple of razzias where they or their loved ones were taken to gas chambers should do the job.
But we have such short memories.
In just about every Dutch town, usually near the railway station there is a monument documenting just that and it still does not seem to make much of a difference.
Interestingly though, just after the wall fell if there was one country that was hyper-sensitive to any kind of surveillance it was the Eastern part of re-united Germany. That was one part of Europe where people seemed to 'get it' in large enough numbers to actually make a difference. Some parts of Poland after their independence from Soviet domination as well.
Though for the most part that seems to have slowly crumbled away.
Surveillance enables many kinds of government oppression, but large-scale ethnic cleansing doesn't seem to be one of them, in that it's already possible and efficient. The Nazi's logistical problems in enacting the Holocaust were more in moving and killing Jews, less in finding them.
ETA: many of the Dutch Jews who did survive were hidden by Dutch people. And yes, such efforts could be thwarted by surveillance. But that seems like an edge case; rare even in the Netherlands, where only a few percent of local Jews were so hidden, and vanishingly rare in the Holocaust as a whole across Europe.
If they had there would most likely not be a Jewish people to speak of, as it was the little bit of automation they had coupled with a stereotypical dose of German thorougness already did a very good job (good is not really applicable here). Now combine that with say a twist of 'big data' and some nice pattern recognition algorithms (facial recognition for instance, or maybe DNA analysis) and it would have been possible to round up a significantly larger chunk of the Jewish population than what already happened.
The fact that we now have wall penetrating radar doesn't help either.
> The Nazi's logistical problems in enacting the Holocaust were more in moving and killing Jews, less in finding them.
They had a hard time actually, because the local population did a reasonably good job of hiding them in the strangest spots.
> Surveillance enables many kinds of government oppression, but large-scale ethnic cleansing doesn't seem to be one of them, in that it's already possible and efficient.
Yes. But it won't be made any less efficient by all this helpful identification technology we have nowadays, most likely more, and communications intercepted long before a conflict might even help to identify those that would aid the hunted.
There was significant custom logistical technology developed for the challenge of tracking millions of people during the Holocaust.
Even though I feel I don't have anything worthwhile to hide, I don't like the idea of random strangers finding out the details of my personal life and habits. I don't understand why some(most?) people are totally fine with that...
edit: Maybe my sarcasm/snark wasn't clear: almost the entirety of the parent comment's list of stuff available to the government without a warrant actually requires a warrant.
However, the stuff they can get without a warrant is enough people /do/ freak out if its applied in a manner they understand.
"Police can get phone records without a warrant thanks to a 1979 Supreme Court case, Smith v. Maryland, which found that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to a list of phone numbers. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) — a 1986 law that underpins much of how the government can get digital data — requires providers to allow access to real-time data with a court order and historical data with a subpoena."
https://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-how...
This is why no one will care until we're years beyond too late. It won't be until the federal government starts mass-arresting (e.g. hundreds of thousands) people for some thing found through the dragnet. This probably won't be for several years, if not decades, but it will come.
They would probably be shocked if they did learn that, but there is no evidence for any of those besides phone records prior to 2015. Thankfully (after 2013 leaks), the USA Freedom Act was enacted in response to the "metadata" versus "data" interpretation, so now your phone records (Call Detail Records) will require a warrant if you are a US Person.
Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office, good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most other contexts.
And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent co-worker.
Exactly, and while Obama promised "no surveillance pudding" he actually went into the kitchen and made "massive metadata surveillance pudding".
I imagine once Obama was in office, he was told what had been accomplished so far using this kind of intelligence (terrorists killed, plots prevented, lives (allegedly) saved, etc) that the US would give up if the intelligence dried up. Who will chose to accept that attacks might happen on your watch as President when the tools to avoid them are already in hand?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators-new...
We think that by definition that when private companies have programs, they're not spending public money but I'd argue (somewhat controversial I agree) that any tax break is public money. Also the second part of whether participation is mandatory. I'd say if an ISP has a de facto Monopoly in a market, then we could say participation is mandatory. I hope this part is less controversial.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13639112
Oddly, HN is really worried about server privacy. If we shared a single certificate across 20 domains, then people could see all those domains are hosted in the same place.
My point? We are part of the problem.
Sure it does. That's the whole point of SNI. SSL encrypts the request, including the domain name. If you share a single IP address with multiple vhosts, you have two options. SNI, which leaks the domain in the clear, or a certificate matching all the domains you vhost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
If a server hosts hillaryclintonisgreat.com and donaldtrumpisgreat.com, then SNI leaks the domain and lets the ISP know definitively which one you visited.
If you run one domain per IP, then it's just as obvious who you're connecting to.
Something often ignored: The intelligence agencies of other countries are likely to be doing the same thing. It has already been shown that BND and GCHQ engage in similar behavior with regards to upstream and satellite signals interception, but it seems foolish to assume that other countries are not engaging in this type of intelligence collection.
The everyone else is doing it defence does not change the unethical nature of the action.
If a technology exists it's going to be used, within the normal variations of supply and demand. You might prefer to abstain from using a particular technology, but there's also the possibility that it will get used on you. From a governmental perspective, a country has a requirement to be as aware of its political environment as it can for the sake of its citizens' safety.
- Should NGA not use imaging satellites to keep track of national disasters and environmental issues?
- Should NGA not use imaging satellites for nuclear non-proliferation monitoring?
- Should DoD not have digital sensors at the egress points of their networks to gather information on attacks by foreign actors?
- Should NSA not monitor the communications of foreign adversaries to determine their intentions on the battlefield?
- Should NSA not investigate adversarial nations launching attacks and information-gathering operations against DoD infrastructure as well as US private industry?
- Should our military intelligence branches not monitor weapons development of adversarial nations (using ELINT measurements, imaging satellites, along with other forms of intelligence gathering to determine their offensive/defensive capabilities)
- Should we not use SIGINT sensors and capabilities to detect an incoming attack on the USA or an ally?
- I can add a whole lot more to this list if interested.
The act of "spying" is far more than just SIGINT collection and processing of internet data. Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with? Do you take issue with all intelligence collection as a whole, or specifically SIGINT collection, or more specifically SIGINT collection of internet data or phone records? I am curious and like to keep an open mind about these things, so am being genuine when I ask this.
> Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with?
I'm always interested in what people think the intel agencies do or should be doing. Personally I agree with you, targeted intelligence is more valuable than blanket intelligence but today with "big data" this may be changing.
This is analogous to what the government is doing with privacy rights. The US can't say we're a nation rooted in innate human rights but then dismiss those rights when dealing with the rest of the world.
To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom.
I have trouble understanding how this analogy relates, do you have a different one which can illustrate your point? (It may be a good point so I would like to understand it)
> To the contrary, the US should be supporting countries that don't spy on their citizens and punishing those that do. We should want to encourage liberal free societies, and not become a global threat to freedom.
How would we go about doing this? Would we trust other nations if they said that they do not conduct any of intelligence gathering operations, or would we use a more covert manner of discovering and verifying that they indeed are not engaged in such activities?
Additionally, how would we be able to continue to ensure the safety of our allies if we removed all sensors responsible for detecting an incoming attack from an enemy?
Interesting as that is exactly what China and Saudi Arabia are doing in the US.
Because it's a massive human rights violation. Just because the agencies job is to gather intelligence doesn't mean it can trod all over the rights of non-US citizens.
It could be also argued that it's a violation of our right to freedom of expression. Personally I have started to self-censor anything I post online.
The CJEU also recently ruled against mass data collection that the UK was doing and I believe that sharing data with agencies outside Europe was also ruled illegal.
I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation. It's specific to bulk collection.
> I'm not saying that wiretapping someone with a warrant or monitoring someone within the law is a human rights violation.
As the communications of targets now mostly flow through the same "pipes" as the communications of normal citizens who are not of interest, I am curious how effective intelligence gathering could be conducted on actual targets without bulk collection. For example, the IC cannot quite get a warrant to secretly monitor non-state actors such as members of ISIS, al-Shabaab, AQAP, etc. Nor could the IC easily get a warrant to breach PLA computer systems to investigate the party responsible for breaching DoD networks.
It is very possible that I am not seeing this the right way, but I don't like the idea of the USA being the only country in the world who is suddenly in the dark with regards to intelligence. It puts us at a disadvantage with regards to our own defense as well as the defense of our close allies. I am genuinely curious if there is a counter-argument for this?
My point on warrants wasn't well thought out. You make some good points there.
As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others.
It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is. If we were able to say 'x' lives have been saved because of it I might more readily be willing to cede some privacy. I think that number would have to be quite high though as I believe privacy is fundamental to a democratic society and should be treated more seriously than it generally is.
Well this is close to what is happening. As I understand it, to indefinitely store data the system would need to be tasked to track certain targets of interest. That said, I would be curious to see the success stories for data derived from specific targeting versus those which required past data that was only available due to the "rolling buffer" of data/metadata (I am assuming that this is what you're referring to when you say "indiscriminately"). The "rolling buffer" setup could not have been very easy to create versus the "retain data only for certain targets and drop other data" methodology, so there must have been some intelligence need for it at some point, but with the prevalence of HTTPS I'm not so sure it'd be useful. Could be wrong though, surely at least an interesting way this could be reconciled.
> As for the USA being in the dark I think my points are relevant to most countries so the idea is not to disadvantage anyone but that there is a level playing field that respects everyone's rights. Obviously some countries are going to violate human rights but it shouldn't be highly developed democratic nations just because the right is less glamorous than others.
I just find it incredibly hard to believe that nearly all other countries are not performing similar forms of SIGINT collection in the same way we are. I believe that it is just USA and the UK who are in the spotlight for this due to the leaks in 2013. That said, I absolutely admit that I don't have much to stand on without the ability to point to public evidence of this.
> It's very hard to have a useful debate on this when we don't actually have data showing how useful bulk data collection is.
You are absolutely correct here, the current "trust us" reasoning is unhelpful. Solid statements such as "By performing bulk monitoring of internet traffic flows, we were able to task the system to capture all traffic from selectors (phone number, e-mail, IP, etc) associated with BadGuy X1 X2 and X3, who were planning Y attack on Z and we were able to have AlliedMilitary thwart it" would be a far more productive way to have a clear discussion on the topic at hand. The IC has an aversion to publicizing information regarding this sort of thing presumably due to fear that enemies would figure out how they got the required intelligence and then change their tradecraft accordingly. I think that concern is a valid one as well, and I truly hope that we can figure out a decent way to reconcile it so there can be a middle ground. Perhaps it could even be helpful to provide aggregate information at an unclassified level and have cleared representatives publicly confirm the accuracy by reviewing the case by case (specific) classified details.
I do not understand what you mean by this. I am assuming you do not believe there is an analyst looking at every bit of data that flows through the internet backbone, so could you elaborate here? Are you referring to intelligence collection?
The parent comment seemed to imply that the goal/job of an intelligence agency ought to be to spy as much as possible on as many people as possible. I expressed doubt.
Suppose the government gets a warrant to wiretap some guy. He happens to get a call from his lawyer, and the government overhears that he's committed some crime.
Now there's an attorney/client privilege preventing you from directly producing the tape (is there?) so you can't just do that. But the fact that you've heard this means as an investigator you'll probably pursue this guy much more aggressively, and perhaps gather other evidence rather than give up.
How does that work?
> The N.S.A.’s protections for attorney-client conversations are narrowly crafted, said Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University’s School of Law. The agency is barred from sharing with prosecutors intercepted attorney-client communications involving someone under indictment in the United States, according to previously disclosed N.S.A. rules. But the agency may still use or share the information for intelligence purposes.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/eavesdropping-ensnared...
The author would have a stronger argument by sticking to the facts. Searches of U.S. persons without a warrant are directly at odds with the language in the 4th amendment of the Constitution, full stop.
I.e., it's because none of this privacy technology is built-in as the default into our communications infrastructure. Therefore, for the average person (and even for privacy-conscious techies), it is inconvenient and difficult, and you have to convince the party you're talking with to also install and configure something that is inconvenient and difficult for them.
I'm convinced that the question of why end-to-end crypto isn't the default is a political one; i.e., there is pressure not to do it.
Email is a special case because of the various semantics like searching and federated clients.
Some of the comments are worth reading if not for the sheer size of the discussion. It could take an afternoon or two to fully digest that thread.
The comments are in response to this: https://blog.filippo.io/giving-up-on-long-term-pgp/
Doesn't even make sense what he's proposing: Instead of getting a warrant to record the American, the NSA targets the foreigner? But what if they call someone else overseas? Or call people in the US? Seems like a really suboptimal way of targeting someone. And a low-level employee could unmask the caller? Sure, and that could also lead to that employee getting fired and prosecuted. I can access lots of data at work, but I would be shown the door and possibly sued if I did so.