Obama presents NSA reforms with plan to end government storage of call data
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Mass storage of phone conversations doesn't appear to be ended, just shuffled off to some private contractor instead of being NSA-internal.
Phone records aren't even the biggest concern in the first place. The real scary thing is their Internet firehose taps at places like AT&T room 641A and their Utah datacenter built to store exabytes upon exabytes of data. Put two and two together--that's the worry. Not a peep about that.
This is literally nothing. None of the core issues have been addressed. He's just changed the window-dressing.
What specific problems do you see with the FISA courts that would not also be present if these cases were heard in regular Federal district courts?
Exactly.
Except it is not going to be 'some private contractor', it will be dream come true for Lockheed Martin. Or, if it is not them then it will be some other military contractor because otherwise people will cotton to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the NSA is Lockheed Martin.
At least the NSA is theoretically accountable to the government, and the people by proxy. A private company is all about shareholder value. So, strip away the presentation by the cuddly President and you get yet more privatisation/outsourcing of the military-industrial complex.
I had a very hard time getting past this line he fed at ~11 minutes in. If that is the presumed mindset, you can draw some very broad (and i fear accurate) assumptions about the changes going forward.
You can certainly draw assumptions from that: they aren't going to back away from these very reasonable interpretations unless the Supreme Court makes them untenable by, say, rejecting the Third Party Doctrine, but given the law that's on the books, it's accurate to say that what has been leaked is not consistent with the NSA actively seeking to ignore the law.
They covered their asses to keep from going down for actual criminal activity, but I'm not willing to say that they seem to have placed any emphasis on the fundamental liberties or protections that the Constitution is supposed to afford.
Even their secret court has pointed out that they're crossing the line (likely, more than once).
I mean, it's at the point that they're having to lie to a secret, relatively unaccountable court because even that won't buy their bullshit.
As for the "intent of fundamental laws" the intent of the 4th amendment was to prevent customs officials from trespassing on private property. The founders never talked about the "right of privacy" as a coherent concept. The "right to privacy" was conjured from the "penumbras" of the Constitution (i.e. thin air) just a couple of decades before Smith v. Maryland was decided.
Also, you are ignoring all other reports that the NSA is storing CONTENT of every means of communication.
Just this week, it was revealed that they store hundreds of millions of text messages:
* http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/nsa-collects-mi...
They also store every single phone call made in the US:
* http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec1...
* http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-fla...
Oh, and thinking about using Skype? Also tapped:
* http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/nsa-taps-skype-ch...
The "spirit" of the law is to keep government agents from trespassing on your property looking for contraband. The "right of privacy" wasn't conjured out of thin air by the Supreme Court until the 1960's. Collecting information under the Third Party Doctrine violates neither the letter nor the spirit of the 4th amendment.
> Just this week, it was revealed that they store hundreds of millions of text messages:
Are they the text messages of Americans?
> They also store every single phone call made in the US:
If they store every phone call made in the U.S. that would definitely be illegal. But the evidence that they do this is much flimsier than for the other things we know they do.
E.g. they can collect every detail about a person's life in ways that are normally illegal, but it's ok because no person has looked at the data yet.
What's the legality of basically giving full system access to all NSA data to 'allies' such as Israel with only a footnote in the agreement about using the 'honour system' if they find data in the system that shouldn't be there (e.g. a Senator's data gets caught in the net)?
What about the legality of skirting 'no spying on Americans' laws by forming agreements with foreign bodies such that said foreign body readily shares all data it has from spying on Americans (and the NSA does the same thing in kind, sharing data that said foreign body isn't legally allowed to collect on its own).
"The government further disclosed that, apart from this shared database, NSA analysts made it a general practice to disseminate to other agencies NSA intelligence reports containing U.S. person information [..] without obtaining the required determination." (Page 18)
"The government has provided no comprehensive explanation of how so substantial an overcollection occurred, only the conclusion that, [..] there was a failure to translate the technical requirements [..]" (Page 21)
"The history of material misstatements in prior applications and non-compliance with prior orders gives the Court pause before approving such an expanded collection." (Page 72)
(SPOILER ALERT: Of course they rubber stamped it anyway!)
All from http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDPRTT%202.pdf
I don't live in the US, I'm currently in Australia. Australia has no law stopping them from gathering data on Americans, so what happens when the US says, 'hey, tell us about our citizens, we'll tell you about yours'.
You essentially have created the same mass surveillance, you've just outsourced it.
Yes, they are. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-sp...
Also, is there any respite to be had considering the IG was aware of that particular case? Isn't that ideal?
The NSA lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- as the FISC called them out for in a ruling which has become public -- about what they are actually doing in order to get things approved is prima facie evidence that the intent to be unbound by law was not an exception but a matter of systematic policy.
1 employee, 9 women, after 6 years... Not a pretty picture in my mind, honestly. They employ a looot of people, and they're growing more each day... no way that's all that happened imo..
I imagine what would happen if it was a private company employee snooping on women for 6 years...
The data shouldn't be collected in the first place.
Now, as a general principle, just because the Supreme Court has said something it doesn't mean they're not wrong, but the 4th amendment's use of the word "unreasonable" which is historically a signal indicating the need for judicial line drawing, puts this particular bit of line drawing peculiarly within their purview.
I agree the NSA need to be reigned in, a lot, but there are grounds for listening in sometimes. Courts need evidence to convict.
EDIT: I agree that some kind of permission from a judge is needed for oversight.
How do you get probable cause without any information? How do you even get alerted to the idea that you should be opening an investigation into something, without any information?
I mean, how does that work in court? "Yes Your Honor, we would like to obtain a warrant to search Abdi Zullah's Internet-based communications for the next 3 months since we think that he maybe might be planning to blow something up. Maybe. And oh, this is all just a hunch, we've got no evidence at all for this yet."
You'd be laughed out of court, and rightfully so.
Plenty of criminals have been caught using traditional detective work. No issues, here. Many FEWER criminals have been caught using blanket surveillance, and the cost to democracy is high.
I'd rather have the occasional bomber than the government having this kind of access.
Yes, but that's on the other side of time's arrow. The whole point to counter-terrorism is to detect it and stop it before (not after) it has happened.
Again, I'd rather live in a society where the innocent are free and unmonitored than one which the NSA, etc., reign supreme. Counter-terrorism efforts are inherently anti-democratic and anti-freedom, despite protestations to the contrary.
Not interested.
The point is, we don't want it.
No one is asking for omniscience, so feel free to hang the strawman back in the barn. On the other hand, many are asking not to be left completely defenseless.
You're missing the fundamental point that we don't think the government should have this power.
The police should have to have an explainable reason, backed by some kind of evidence besides "I just feel that way" to use state power to infringe on the privacy or rights of a citizen even if that means some criminals get away with their crimes.
The potential abuses of unchecked investigative ability (and other law enforcement powers) is far, far more dangerous than a few mobsters.
I'm not missing that at all, but I am saying it's hypocritical to say "just go get a warrant, geez". If it had been that easy FBI would already being doing it.
It's easy to just mandate some social construct you'd like to achieve, but that does mean you also have to accept the consequences.
The consequences of "no foreign network intelligence" isn't to merely make it a bit more difficult for NSA to do their job, it's to completely eliminate the ability of NSA to do their job, with all of the counter-terror consequences that will entail from that.
While you may be perfectly willing to have the rest of America take on that risk, 3000 people at a time, don't act like you can have your cake and eat it too by simply offering up an alternative course of action which can never be implemented in practice.
Where have I advocated completely unfettered access? I'd be interested to see that.
My question uses the word "should", not the word "could".
Because it sounds like you are saying that the investigation of Abdi Zullah should be permitted to circumvent the courts because the courts and the protections that they rightfully confer would not permit the violation of Abdi Zullah.
It sounds like you think the 4th amendment is great under 'normal circumstances', and it sounds like you think that "terrorism" and "I've got a hunch" should be a secret password for a process that circumvents it.
If this is a misunderstanding, then I do not seem to be the only one misunderstanding you. You should work on your delivery.
For law enforcement? Yes, at least to the extent that an "unreasonable" search would be performed.
For military applications (such as, yes, counter-terrorism)? No, for the same reason we didn't get a warrant to wiretap Hitler's generals. I would still say that searches against any particular individual be supported by more than a single analyst's "hunch", or that non-individualized searches should be looking for particular things instead of just trawling what they can, if only for resource efficiency reasons.
(Many people, myself included, think that there is something wrong with how we are currently handling those situations, but search warrants for non-citizens outside of the country are obviously not the answer we are looking for there.)
Domestic terrorists? Get a warrant.
Then, really, the 4th Amendment should be tossed out the window because all citizens should be subjected to search at any given time based upon the "hunch" of somebody in law enforcement.
I included the last sentence of my comment since you apparently missed it the first time.
> reigned in
There is no 'g' in "rein". They're homophones. They mean different things. "Reigning in the NSA" is what Alexander is doing. "Reining in the NSA" is what you want Obama to do.
Nor should the tools that collected the data continue to exist. They should be disconnected and destroyed. All data, archives and logs, upstream and down, should be destroyed. All copies should be destroyed.
Any and all specifications of how the system is built should be gathered and destroyed.
Those persons who managed, conceived, designed and built the systems and wrote the software should be terminated w/o pension and tried for crimes against the state. I'm talking top to bottom of NSA.
They should be, regardless of conviction, forever banned from re-implementing any similar systems forever. They should also be marked someway in the public record as having participated in the creation of these systems so that we can track them all their lives and ensure that they do not repeat what they have done. A federal agency should be created to track them and check periodically that they are not violating these terms. In other words, they should serve a permanent "parole", with their civil rights reduced(as they have reduced those of millions of Americans), the remainder of their lives. They have forfeited their civil rights by participating in the NSA's offenses and should pay dearly for it.
Both Clapper and Alexander have perjured themselves trying to hide what the NSA does. Is there a bigger arrow anywhere today pointing to a fundamental problem in government? This is way beyond "Cool Hand Luke"'s "We've got a failure to communicate."
Let's go through what I said item by item:
WHAT I SAID EARLIER:
"Nor should the tools that collected the data continue to exist. They should be disconnected and destroyed. All data, archives and logs, upstream and down, should be destroyed. All copies should be destroyed...Any and all specifications of how the system is built should be gathered and destroyed.."
ELABORATION:
Because if they aren't, then at any moment in the future the machines can be turned on again instantly and the process restarted, or the data retrieved. Where is our security in that?
In fact, because of what has happened, we must also either establish a method of oversight for the NSA or abolish it entirely. Reason for this is that the NSA has spun out of control (at least) once already and there is nothing to prevent it from happening again. Congressional oversight did not control the NSA nor did the Executive branch control the NSA; some other oversight is required at the very least. At worst the entire agency should be liquidated.
WHAT I SAID EARLIER:
"Those persons who managed, conceived, designed and built the systems and wrote the software should be terminated w/o pension and tried for crimes against the state. I'm talking top to bottom of NSA."
ELABORATION:
They have violated the most fundamental, the most basic of our human rights. To prevent this happening again they must be prosecuted and punished.
WHAT I SAID EARLIER:
"They should be, regardless of conviction, forever banned from re-implementing any similar systems forever. They should also be marked someway in the public record as having participated in the creation of these systems so that we can track them all their lives and ensure that they do not repeat what they have done. A federal agency should be created to track them and check periodically that they are not violating these terms. In other words, they should serve a permanent "parole", with their civil rights reduced (as they have reduced those of millions of Americans), the remainder of their lives. They have forfeited their civil rights by participating in the NSA's offenses and should pay dearly for it."
ELABORATION:
Again, once they are officially convicted and therefore felons they should be treated as such. Even if they aren't convicted, their future activities will have to be tracked until they die and their work product reviewed. Furthermore, because of the flagrancy of the violation and the dangers posed thereof, conviction or not, they should be prevented forever from participating in such activity again.
I know we're trying to put the genii back into the bottle here. But because we can't put the genii back into the bottle doesn't mean we can't for all practical purposes do damage control on his work. We can at least rip him and the bottle to shreds, burn every piece and scatter each shred under a different rock in some other part of the world. And by putting a federal agency on prosecutory watch for the next 20 years, we can suppress some of the damage already done by the NSA and some of the damage that their information-gathering would otherwise have done.
Satire, my ass.
The domestic portion of the NSA needs to be dismantled completely and utterly and the FISA court system discarded. The older open established legal framework for getting warrants must be restored for use by _all_ governmental agencies.
He completely ignored all the recommendations of the panel he appointed to give him recommendations.
Let's start a Facebook group - Gmail me!
Bullcock.
'The e-mails include what appears to be an exchange on Nov. 9, 2010, between Aaron Barr, HBGary Federal’s chief executive, and John W. Woods, a Hunton & Williams partner who focuses on corporate investigations. Mr. Barr recounted biographical tidbits about the family of a one-time employee of a union-backed group that had challenged the chamber’s opposition to Obama administration initiatives like health care legislation.
“They go to a Jewish church in DC,” Mr. Barr apparently wrote. “They have 2 kids, son and daughter.”'
So we are told to believe that this sensitive national security data that is our collective communications will be safe in the same hands that not only had the tools they were given access to leaked, but who also had their correspondences plotting to attack dissidents leaked.
This is so fucked up on so many levels.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/politics/12hackers.html...