The important thing to remember here is that the NSA was once started with noble goals in mind but it has since changed into an attack dog without much of a leash to hold it back. The NSA still has a useful function and indeed they'll compromise part of that function if their technical capabilities become too well known.
But to stonewall the general public on legitimate requests like these will cause people to use their fantasy as to what those capabilities really are, and that will likely overshoot reality. In that case any information the NSA is likely interested in will go underground so far that they won't be able to get at it in time to prevent damage.
On the other hand if they come clean and it will turn out to be (much) worse than people expected (and there is a good chance of this) then they will likely be reigned in diminishing their capability.
So they are damned either way.
Stonewalling is likely an indication that there is much more hidden than we know about today, otherwise coming clean would actually make them look better.
The best thing for the NSA would be for this whole thing to go away, organizations like that only work when they can do so in comparative secrecy. As soon as the spotlight is aimed at them some of their effectiveness (and in the case of the NSA likely quite a bit of it) will evaporate.
Those pesky foreign media and their relentless releases. Funny how the Guardian is the best place to get information about a United States institution, how Russian dissidents would move to the US and how a US whistleblower is now living in Russia.
It seems our (the general public) best chance in getting some progress in these matters is to play out nation states against each other.
I have no idea where this is all going but I could do with less surveillance in the name of (the war on) terror and a more constructive approach to geopolitical affairs to replace the 'might makes right' policy that we have today.
Damned? The best possible thing that could happen for the NSA as well as everyone else who is affected, would be for the NSA to be pared back to its only legitimate function, military intelligence.
Other good things that should come out of this are:
Strong gov't whistleblower protections, so that future potential leakers will not need to flee. A real threat of whistleblowers may tend to moderate illegal activities conducted in secret. Abuses may still occur, but they should be fewer, and more likely to be reported if whistleblowers had security.
International treaties to protect the security of political dissidents, including securing the freedom to travel.
Real, credible oversight. Relying on Congress didn't work. Relying on the Judicial didn't work. Relying on the press didn't work. We need something better.
> The best possible thing that could happen NSA to be pared back to its only legitimate function, military intelligence.
When describing the functions of government, legitimacy is irrelevant. Besides being immeasurable, it's typically defined by those with authority.
> would be for the NSA to be pared back to its only legitimate function, military intelligence.
Have you considered spying on Americans is military intelligence? Have you considered the military may see the public as a threat to national security that may have to be neutralized at a given moments notice? Surely defending our country from anarchy is a legitimate function of the military?
>When describing the functions of government, legitimacy is irrelevant. Besides being immeasurable, it's typically defined by those with authority.
Fair enough. I hope it is obvious that it was me asserting my opinion.
>Have you considered spying on Americans is military intelligence?
Yes I have. It is a thorny issue. I can even name good reasons that Congress, high ranking gov't officials should be spied upon. I'm not sure those good reasons supersede the potentially disastrous consequences though. Without a doubt though, ubiquitous spying is not compatible with the stated principles of our gov't.
>Have you considered the military may see the public as a threat to national security that may have to be neutralized at a given moments notice?
Yes. There are probably high ranking military officers who believe that moment is now.
>Surely defending our country from anarchy is a legitimate function of the military?
It is most certainly not, at least not without specific constraints.
To emphasize this: I just spent most of the night reading about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EKMS. It's really kind of fascinating how dependent US gov/mil communications security is on these guys. The foreign-spying stuff is pretty much ancillary.
Sorry to nitpick, but the Guardian US, a subsidiary american company broke the story, and the reporter is an American citizen. Nothing really foreign there.
It would be the right place to break the story don't you think? Given the fact that all of the actors are American. That doesn't change one thing about the chain of command at the Guardian though, the Scott Trust (owners of the Guardian papers and online publications) is most definitely English.
This is like saying that if Google China does something Google US has nothing to do with it, which clearly isn't the case.
If the Guardian US were independent of the Scott Trust then you'd have a point but as it is the Guardian is solidly UK based no matter where the subsidiaries reside. I'd imagine a story this big would be passed by the editorial board.
For the Guardian US that is Janine Gibson and Stuart Millar, both have previously been part of the UK portion of the Guardian.
Sure, even naming the "NSA" is considered a "hostile behavior which might lead to a terrorist kamikazee-way attack in the remote future" so it's better to to kill everyone "pro-actively" to secure the "world-wide peace and prosperity". After all the NSA got famous for killing the most dangerous terrorist (or communist) of the 20's century Che-Guevarra. Weird thing, there are more trousers and posters around the world with Che's face than any USA figure. (GO figure...)
What I always ask: what freedoms? I can't think of really any activity I am not paying for. One can't even escape having any single piece of land without havig to annually pay a license to the government to keep it.
So when we are told others hate our freedoms, I want to know specifically which ones those are.
If they say "religion" I don't count that as one as I am not religious. If they say "speech" I'd like to point to "free speech zones" and other direct limitations.
I can't think of anything that is truly 100% free.
You have plenty of areas where you're not free to be irreligious. Or where criticising the regime will land you in jail. That said, the"hating our freedoms" line is definitely bull. People actually say that?
Going to go ahead and be the voice of reason and state that:
1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you. Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance. If information is contained in databases that correspond to your communiques, it is not catalogued as "Kevin Collier", because that would be a direct FISA violation and trigger administrative removal of the data along with reporting about how the violation occurred.
2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers.
3. By flooding NSA public relations with these useless requests, you're blocking potentially real requests from being processed. If you really cared about getting actual information about programs, you would back EFF, etc. efforts.
>1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you. Domestic matters are the FBI's territory.
That's the law. We've already established that they don't care much for that.
>2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers.
That's because they are uninteresting. Why do you assume everyone would be as uninteresting as you?
How about the interesting people, people that would be going forward what MLK was in the past, for example? How about whistleblowers, investigative journalists, people active in politics, people working on high end tech, etc?
Because MLK was targeted by the FBI, not by NSA. The reason why NSA failed to "help" the Boston Bombing attacks for instance, is because the Boston Bombers were American People. (ie: American citizens, or people on American Soil).
All this hub-bub about domestic surveillance, and people don't even get the right _AGENCY_ who is authorized to target Americans. The amount of ignorance on Hacker News is outstanding.
For crying out loud, if you're going to use historical examples, at least get it right damn it. You're _trying_ to cite project COINTELPRO as a reason to fear the government, sure, whatever. Get the names right, get the agencies right, and get your history right before you post!
Else you would look pretty damn ignorant to those who know history and understand politics. You do know at least the different agencies that the US Government law enforcement / intelligence community are composed of, right?
Anyway, FBI keeps files on Americans, because that is their damn job! NSA cannot, and not only are they legally not allowed to, they do not have the infrastructure to actually keep individual tabs on Americans. The FBI is in charge of the fingerprint database. The FBI is in charge of the genetic database. The FBI _authorized_ the domestic surveillance FISA court order (Read the leaked documents from Snowden himself: FBI approval is on the papers for a reason).
Breath of fresh air -- while everyone is busy trying to tear apart what I said (even though I've worked in the NSA, CIA, and with the FBI and consider myself a credible source), you, sir, have your facts correct.
What all of the anti-NSA sentiment fails to address is the actual truth of the matter. The NSA is the only intelligence agency with its shit together, and provides the most actionable intelligence to decision makers. That being said, their collection strategy is determined by policy makers (in Washington) based off of what policy makers deem are the most important priorities. This means that the cycle works like this:
1. Policy makers determine what are their priorities pertaining to foreign policy, national security, etc.
2. *Policy makers provide that list of priorities to the NSA.
3. The NSA returns with what is needed in order to fill those priorities such as budgets and policy changes.
4. Policy makers take that information and weigh the cost/benefit of changing current policy, allotting more funding, etc.
5. NSA sends reports on collection, which policy makers have access to.
6. Policy makers take that information and provide feedback as to the helpfulness of it, who it was briefed to (as in, how high it was briefed), and what direction they are more interested in seeing reporting go.
The NSA is a well-greased cog in a malformed machine. Don't blame the NSA for performing the duties they've been directed to do -- blame the politicians directing them to do it.
In closing, the whole fact that public policy is shifting from all of the backlash is kind of heartening in that it shows the public does have a say in the process. I can't speak to the things in the news, but I will say that collecting on a US person is the fastest way to get fired in the NSA. That's probably why I find it so ironic for all the people deriding NSA now, and NSA having to take the "neither confirm nor deny" stance.
>In closing, the whole fact that public policy is shifting from all of the backlash is kind of heartening in that it shows the public does have a say in the process
I can understand a lot of your comments in this thread, but not this one. The only reason the public has the chance to influence this process is due to leaked information. There is not an official system of checks and balances of which the general public may play a part.
I'm going to stick my neck out a little and say that the reason for this line is this:
I don't believe in the veracity of the leaked documents detailing PRISM. As I'm not in there anymore, this is not a confirmation of anything, just personal belief (speculation). I, for one, have seen one too many shit powerpoints floating around NSANet written by some military E-6 trying to explain some difficult concept to a group of E-5's. What do they do? Generalize and over-simplify. Just because it has classification markings doesn't make it official -- when I emailed friends to say "Hey, you want to get lunch today?", sometimes it was marked as top secret because I forgot to change it.
A sysadmin is a job that has little to no understanding of operating concepts, architecture, and program scope. It's someone you go to when you accidentally lock yourself out of your account and need to change your password. It's a Tier-1 technician who sees a green box in a network diagram go red, and start making phone calls to people who are actually capable of a root-cause-analysis (tier-3 technicians). So, a sysadmin swoops up a bunch of powerpoints knowing nothing about the operational details of the programs they seem to be describing, and posts them for people to read and make their own conclusions using only those powerpoints as a source of information. That whole way of starting a public discussion is flawed, because the information contained therein is so utterly questionable to me. Regardless of that, I'm glad that online privacy (which is something I strongly believe in) is finally being publicly discussed, which is why I said that.
That was then and this is now. Budget wars aside, all those co-operate constantly anyway.
>The reason why NSA failed to "help" the Boston Bombing attacks for instance, is because the Boston Bombers were American People.
Or, far more possible, because they are incompetent and/or that kind of surveillance doesn't work for those cases.
>All this hub-bub about domestic surveillance, and people don't even get the right _AGENCY_ who is authorized to target Americans. The amount of ignorance on Hacker News is outstanding.
Perhaps you have been living under a rock and haven't heard that this "autorizations" amount to squat, that Americans' communications are regularly and massively surveilled, and that there are tons of BS ways to sidestep those "rules".
It's like talking to a 7-year old: "But daddy could never lie or do bad stuff".
That was then and this is now. Budget wars aside, all those co-operate constantly anyway.
So you don't have a historic example? Your ignorance is amazing.
Its about damn time someone started calling people out on this crap, and I'm starting with you. YOU DON'T KNOW what you're talking about. So shut the $%## up, and do some basic history research.
Listen, I could demolish my own argument in one second. I've only partially reported the facts in my post, and I'm not telling the complete story. There is a big history in the 70s, and anyone who has studied the Church Committee, COINTELPRO, Nixon Administration, and FISA courts should know where I'm going with this. Its basic 1970s history, and the NSA was all wrapped up in that controversy from years ago.
Right now, you are making up bull$* based on ignorance. You use weasel words, "what if" scenarios, and suppositions to "support" your opinion. On the other hand, there are some _FACTS_ that we can discuss, but only if you can prove to me that you aren't a dumb, ignorant sheep of the masses.
EDIT: Here's a hint. What is St. Patrick known for?
Why did you fucking ask for one? I've got tons of historic examples -- from US and from all other the world. I'm not some kool aid drinker that thinks things are different in the US. It amazes me when people are so naive (and politically infatilized) as to think those kind of barriers matter or that they respect the law regarding US citizens. That's probably why people are amazed time and again, like goldfish, when this kind of shit re-emerges in the news.
>There is a big history in the 70s, and anyone who has studied the Church Committee, COINTELPRO, Nixon Administration, and FISA courts should know where I'm going with this. Its basic 1970s history, and the NSA was all wrapped up in that controversy from years ago.
Basic 70s history if you're an American (and even then, most can not tell Belgium on the map). I've read about all this cases time and again. Didn't bother to check if NSA was involved (rather than CIA) because I could not give less fucks. When it comes to this, those are the same kind of agencies, working from the same side and for the same purposes and using the same practices. The pendantic distinction you made between them would only interest a bureacraut.
No offense, but you sound like any other ignorant American, which is ironic because you're criticizing us for that.
You're talking about policies that you don't understand, and you're talking about power structures that you don't have any interest in learning about. You are proud of your ignorance, and instead of responding to my challenge with facts and history, you respond with unsubstantiated opinions.
This conversation will go nowhere until you decide to wake up, do some research, and actually form an argument. I've started this conversation on facts, and I intend to keep it on facts. If you're not interested in conversing about the realities of this subject, you might as well give it up against me.
And with all the abuses admitted to by the executive branch of the federal government over the decades, do you honestly think that it being illegal actually prevents them from doing it?
Yes. That's basically like saying that you're culpable for a crime because the person who lived in your house before you committed a crime. The people who were in office and committed illegal acts decades ago are not the same people in office right now. Everyone should be judged based on their own actions -- the government is not some borg mind slowly creeping towards its dictatorial dreams, but a collection of individuals with different moralities. My guess is that if you look close enough, you're not going to find all these crazy conspiracies floating about actually be true, because people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job.
1) It's not only elected officials who've abused their power. Employees of the FBI are not elected by citizens and the citizens have little power to change the makeup of the organization. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03...
2) Institutional culture plays a large part in abuses that continue through administrations and even changes in departmental leadership. Institutional culture doesn't simply change because the head of the beast is re-appointed. (And even in the case of the current elected head of the Executive, many things have not changed though changes were promised, but that's a slight digression.)
You talk about people with different moralities, and then mention that "people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job." I read that as regardless of people's personal opinions, they're too lazy to challenge the status quo and would rather keep their heads down and receive their paychecks. Without whistleblower protections, that's exactly the environment that's fostered.
Finally, in my opinion, all this is moot. We should necessarily question those in authority, we should necessarily limit the power given to those in government, and we should necessarily suspect those in power to have anything other than ourown best interests in mind.
>1) It's not only elected officials who've abused their power. Employees of the FBI are not elected by citizens and the citizens have little power to change the makeup of the organization. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03....
I agree. It's an elitist culture of special agent assholes and "everyone else". Trust me, I don't like the FBI. But, people within the organization also have very little power to change it -- they're extremely reticent to any kind of change regardless of efficiency gains. It took months of planning for them to even consider using an excel macro I wrote that could save millions of dollars per year.
>2) Institutional culture plays a large part in abuses that continue through administrations and even changes in departmental leadership. Institutional culture doesn't simply change because the head of the beast is re-appointed. (And even in the case of the current elected head of the Executive, many things have not changed though changes were promised, but that's a slight digression.)
You talk about people with different moralities, and then mention that "people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job." I read that as regardless of people's personal opinions, they're too lazy to challenge the status quo and would rather keep their heads down and receive their paychecks. Without whistleblower protections, that's exactly the environment that's fostered.
I agree, whistleblower protections would be a massively positive change in how governance works in the US, and would make people accountable for decisions which have significant impact on national policy, security, and economy. That being said, I don't see either Manning or Snowden as whistleblowers.
>Finally, in my opinion, all this is moot. We should necessarily question those in authority, we should necessarily limit the power given to those in government, and we should necessarily suspect those in power to have anything other than our own best interests in mind.
Definitely. I'm personally hoping that this stuff spawns a legitimate third party as a true representative of what this generation's ideals are heading towards. The smart money, though, is on incumbents commandeering the messages and subverting them a la Tea Party.
First, thank you for continuing to participate in this discussion. I think you are bringing some different perspective and make some good points.
> I agree, whistleblower protections would be a massively positive change in how governance works in the US, and would make people accountable for decisions which have significant impact on national policy, security, and economy. That being said, I don't see either Manning or Snowden as whistleblowers.
What do you think disqualifies them as whistleblowers? Manning seems disqualified on some level because his leaks were large, not specific, without a specific goal, and possibly not even motivated by the content of what he leaked. Snowden's leaks seem more specific and motivated by a desire to blow the whistle on specific practices he sees as illegal or immoral. Daniel Ellsberg's leaks were rather large and non-specific in many ways but he is widely regarded as a whistleblower. What is the qualification or disqualification?
I don't see them as whistleblowers, because their actions stand in contrast to Ellsberg. For one, neither of them tried to go to a higher authority to report wrongdoing -- that is the very first thing that a potential whistleblower must do, is handle things at the lowest level possible and allow the situation to rectify itself before taking matters into their own hands. When that fails, then you escalate to higher authorities. Secondly, Ellsberg surrendered himself to the court system willingly, knowing full well that he could face life imprisonment. Manning was caught and brought to justice after having bragged on an AOL chat to someone about his "hacking", while Snowden fled the country taking with him a trove of classified documents which could be in the hands of other countries, weakening any argument (to me) that he had the US's best intentions at heart. My argument about Snowden is that he knows so little about the programs he supposedly leaked -- I watched his interview and was astonished at the blatant lies in it (see my other post on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5885846), not to mention him saying that he could wiretap any american (or even the president!) at any time. True whistleblowers are caught in the middle of something that they have solid knowledge of, but are unable to change the course of, so they go to the public in order for the public to do the course correction.
At this point in time we have plenty of evidence that the NSA has not been staying within the lines. If nothing else the "parallel construction" collaboration with the DEA shows that the line between the NSA and the corrupt sharing of information with agencies that are not entitled to collected intelligence is happening. The executive branch has come up with a number of ways to shield programs of questionable legality from legal scrutiny outside of it's own chosen framework of understanding...
So the obvious answer is that we need an independent congressional commission, preferably headed by Ron Wyden; to provide a complete accounting of what has been happening in the past decade. Such commission would need the power to unilaterally declassify items of concern and would be tasked with coming up with a framework of oversight and accountability that would enable legal and necessary signals intelligence functions while preserving the constitutional rights of American citizens and the privacy concerns of rest of the world.
Secret laws, secret courts; wholesale and indiscriminate data collection paired with indefinite retention of all data as potentially culpable are not reflective of American values.
3. All information gleaned from the NSA is real information, and you don't send it to the public relations department. Instead it is an actual department set up to handle these requests from the public who wishes to know what their government is doing.
That's implicit in "Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance", but I wanted to be pedantic since the debate on NSA surveillance seems to take surveillance of foreigners as something completely natural and in no way wrong.
But honestly, assuming we get to a point where the US government has a file on every American citizen, does it really matter if the file is with the FBI and not the NSA? Of course the rules and laws covering the two agencies are different, but ultimately, it doesn't seem like the US government is very interested in strictly following the law.
Different agencies follow the law differently. Each agency is composed of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of agents, contractors, and even supporting military staff.
ATF is pretty famous for being extremely fast and loose with the law (see Fast and Furious scandal). FBI on the other hand, is typically considered with higher regard as to legal compliance. But these are different agencies, run differently by different people.
Furthermore, the authority to do actions may all start from the President... but the President divides the authority between the agencies. NSA does not collect from US citizens not only because its against the law, but because its inefficient. The FBI has more files, more manpower, and more specialists on that front. (IE: Fingerprint Database and Genetic Database). However, agencies sometimes collaborate with each other to pass authority between each other, it has become necessary in the era of post-9/11, when the lack of inter-agency collaboration was cited as the #1 reason why 9/11 wasn't prevented.
So now authorities between agencies are passed around: NSA is allowed to collect metadata, because the program is technically FBI. Read the leaked FISA court order carefully. Its an FBI request, the NSA did not technically make the request. The FBI is demanding for data to be handed over to the NSA.
If you are to understand politics, what is _really_ going on in this country, you need to break the habit of thinking of the US Government as one homogenous blob. It is composed of many parts, some of which compete for attention, some of which follow the law better than others.
Lets see how good your "National Government" education was in High School. You know, some of that stuff is important to understand the context of what is going on.
I'm not American, so my education with regards to governments did not include specifics of how the US government works, only a general overview of the governments of most countries.
I'm aware that the US government is not monolithic and homogenous. But it's things like the NSA's programs (such as PRISM) that centralize resources and funding, and turn a heterogeneous government into a coalition defending not always what's best for the nation and the world, or defending the interest of a small group to the detriment of non-adversarial groups with less influence.
Past behavior isn't a guarantee of good future behavior. The NSA always had a fairly good image: secretive but inoffensive, mostly concerned with breaking encrypted communications of interest to national security, and offering good crypto for American citizens and companies. It didn't have the less nice overtones the CIA has, for instance.
Well part of that is how the NSA's mission. NSA is charged with both defense and offense. Defense side has brought us AES, SHA1, etc. etc. Offense side is well... the current controversy.
Anyway, your words are unfortunately generic, and can be applied to any federal government agency. Centralizing resources is almost always going to be either more efficient or more effective. It is important that the NSA is technically a military organization (with tons of civilian supporters). It is run by a 4-Star General, and their primary targets are military enemies. It is imperative for the NSA to be as powerful as possible from a collections standpoint.
The key therefore, is in the laws that restrict the NSA's behavior. The NSA is an outstandingly useful tool to the military... run under the same executive branch that the rest of the Military is run (Department of Defense). Unlike the CIA, which competes with the DoD for budget material, the NSA is most certainly a military tool.
A nation's citizens need to be comfortable with its military. Squadrons of F16s are almost never deployed against citizens, and the massive war machines (Fleets of Carriers, Napalm, etc. etc.) are similarly not to be used against one's own citizens. The NSA is on that list of extremely powerful, but useful tools of the Military's toolbox.
>Going to go ahead and be the voice of reason and state that:
You aren't the voice of reason. You're the guy with his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed. You are the worst possible neighbor to have in a democratic society. Until you are directly and personally affected, you will continue to argue that those who oppose surveillance are all "unreasonable" to expect the gov't to follow the law, or for even "believing" that the gov't does not, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing.
>1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you.
The NSA keeps _all_ of the source data. A file can be built at any instant by a simple query. The distinction of not having a "file" at some particular moment is without meaning. One might even argue that the architecture of the systems are designed to allow this "lie" to be told. At the very least, officials have demonstrated their willingness to exploit this semantic loophole, which by the strict rules of logic, evaluates as "true" but which all honest people consider "lying through your teeth".
> Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance.
The NSA passes evidence of non-terrorism, non-national-security, ie domestic crimes to domestic law enforcement on its own accord, as has been reported widely in the press. Additionally, US intelligence services have in the past been caught passing inside information to commercial interests, also well beyond the scope of "strictly foreign surveillance".
>If information is contained in databases that correspond to your communiques, it is not catalogued as "Kevin Collier", because that would be a direct FISA violation and trigger administrative removal of the data along with reporting about how the violation occurred.
You have no proof of that. Even given the little that is actually revealed about the NSA so far, it is not reasonable to claim that the NSA has followed the rules in this particular scenario, given the many examples of rule-breaking, and the NSA's demonstrated contempt of FISC rulings.
>2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers.
I can say with complete confidence that you are wrong again. Laura Poitras, Jacob Applebaum, many others have been receiving extralegal searches, seizures of their electronic devices at the border for years. Just a few weeks ago, a family received a visit by virtue of their internet searches. Even if you were correct, it is an extreme threshold for opposition to gov't lawbreaking. You think that no person should make a fuss, until the speech of "white suburban bloggers" is targeted?
>3. By flooding NSA public relations with these useless requests, you're blocking potentially real requests from being processed. If you really cared about getting actual information about programs, you would back EFF, etc. efforts.
Even if their tactic is ineffective or even counter-productive, I prefer it to your denialist condescention.
>You aren't the voice of reason. You're the guy with his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed. You are the worst possible neighbor to have in a democratic society. Until you are directly and personally affected, you will continue to argue that those who oppose surveillance are all "unreasonable" to expect the gov't to follow the law, or for even "believing" that the gov't does not, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Not going to touch that one.
>The NSA keeps _all_ of the source data. A file can be built at any instant by a simple query. The distinction of not having a "file" at some particular moment is without meaning. One might even argue that the architecture of the systems are designed to allow this "lie" to be told. At the very least, officials have demonstrated their willingness to exploit this semantic loophole, which by the strict rules of logic, evaluates as "true" but which all honest people consider "lying through your teeth".
It's not all kept.
>The NSA passes evidence of non-terrorism, non-national-security, ie domestic crimes to domestic law enforcement on its own accord, as has been reported widely in the press. Additionally, US intelligence services have in the past been caught passing inside information to commercial interests, also well beyond the scope of "strictly foreign surveillance".
You're confusing NSA with FBI.
>You have no proof of that. Even given the little that is actually revealed about the NSA so far, it is not reasonable to claim that the NSA has followed the rules in this particular scenario, given the many examples of rule-breaking, and the NSA's demonstrated contempt of FISC rulings.
I do have proof. I was in the NSA and I took the yearly FISA training. NSA analysts take FISA violations very seriously, and always err on the side of US person if in doubt. Why? Because collecting on a US person is the quickest way to get fired.
>I can say with complete confidence that you are wrong again. Laura Poitras, Jacob Applebaum, many others have been receiving extralegal searches, seizures of their electronic devices at the border for years. Just a few weeks ago, a family received a visit by virtue of their internet searches. Even if you were correct, it is an extreme threshold for opposition to gov't lawbreaking. You think that no person should make a fuss, until the speech of "white suburban bloggers" is targeted?
Now you're confusing NSA with NCTC http://www.nctc.gov/about_us/how_we_do.html. Awesome. NSA does not watchlist people. That's a combination of the Terrorist Screening Center (FBI) and NCTC. That being said, Laura Poitras and Jacob Applebaum aren't going to be on that list unless they're somehow funding Hezbollah.
All in all, I find your response to be composed of pure internet anger and no factual content.
I do have proof. I was in the NSA and I took the yearly FISA training. NSA analysts take FISA violations very seriously, and always err on the side of US person if in doubt.
Your unsubstantiated claims do not constitute "proof". Anybody can claim to have worked for the NSA. And, if anything, for anyone to "out" themselves as former NSA, strikes me as fairly suspicious, since ex-NSA people (other than high profile ones like the former director) don't seem to be in a hurry to identify themselves as a rule.
And, if you think about it, why would a former NSA person out themselves? They're just making themselves a target by doing so. After all, why would the bad guys now come and take you, chain you up in a basement somewhere, and interrogate you until you reveal everything you know about the US intelligence community?
NSA analysts take FISA violations very seriously, and always err on the side of US person if in doubt.
That does not seem to jibe with the details reported here:
How would you explain that discrepancy between your claims, and those of the WaPo? Note that the WaPo story does include at least a degree of hard evidence, in the form of documentation.
>Your unsubstantiated claims do not constitute "proof". Anybody can claim to have worked for the NSA. And, if anything, for anyone to "out" themselves as former NSA, strikes me as fairly suspicious, since ex-NSA people (other than high profile ones like the former director) don't seem to be in a hurry to identify themselves as a rule.
It's not really my concern whether or not you believe what I say, as you are not my target audience. You are already convinced of your rightness and my wrongness. I'm typing to the people who want actual facts to back the discussion.
>That does not seem to jibe with the details reported here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-br....
How would you explain that discrepancy between your claims, and those of the WaPo? Note that the WaPo story does include at least a degree of hard evidence, in the form of documentation.
What they don't post is how many firings/missed promotions that has led to. Each incident would be just one phone number or piece of information, so in the case of the "20"->"202" mixup, they could have targeted 300 phone numbers and now that's 300 incidents. If that was a contractor that was responsible for that, they're already gone. If it was a government employee, they're likely not an analyst anymore.
The Washington Post's story only backs what I said. If the NSA was so trigger-happy to violate American rights, why would they even keep track of the number of violations? Bragging rights at the end of the year? In the example they used, they were targeting Egyptian citizens, and the US phone numbers got caught in the crossfires. Sounds to me like people legitimately trying to do their jobs, and human error working against them.
I'm typing to the people who want actual facts to back the discussion.
And you still haven't explained why anybody would accept your unsubstantiated assertions as fact.
What they don't post is how many firings/missed promotions that has led to.
Who cares? That the incidents are happening at all is the point.
If that was a contractor that was responsible for that, they're already gone. If it was a government employee, they're likely not an analyst anymore.
Again, assertion which might be true, or might be made up from whole cloth. Without some sort of evidence, your audience - regardless of who they are - have no way of evaluating the veracity of your claims.
If the NSA was so trigger-happy to violate American rights, why would they even keep track of the number of violations?
Fair point. I'd suspect it's because they have to maintain at least a veneer of legitimacy in order to avoid having Congress starting to dig deeper and deeper into their operations, and potentially even pull the plug altogether.
>I'm typing to the people who want actual facts to back the discussion.
Don't forget to disclose any conflict of interest, ie your former, and perhaps even your current employers! Also, instead of mere claims of fact, try supporting the claims with credible data.
>so in the case of the "20"->"202" mixup.... Sounds to me like people legitimately trying to do their jobs,
Sounds to me like the kind of thing that an automated system ought to be able to flag/prevent.
Nor should you, given your supposed affiliation with the NSA.
>It's not all kept.
More is kept than phone/email metadata, which even by themselves, are too much.
>You're confusing NSA with FBI.
No I'm not. Where does the FBI, DEA, IRS get the data? You're ignoring the Parallel Discovery disclosures and the exception contained in the PATRIOT act that allows the NSA to retain information that’s "accidentally" collected on Americans. "This information is generally destroyed, but there are some important exceptions. For example, if an intercepted communication contains information about a crime being committed, the NSA may retain the information and turn it over the law enforcement."[1]
>I do have proof. I was in the NSA and I took the yearly FISA training. NSA analysts take FISA violations very seriously, and always err on the side of US person if in doubt. Why? Because collecting on a US person is the quickest way to get fired.
1. A singular example of "lawful" behavior from an NSA analyst isn't proof of anything remarkable, even if I choose to take you at your word, I would expect a majority to behave in good faith. I, like nearly every person who has a job take yearly training for various compliance functions at my employer, those simple annual compliance courses cannot actually ensure compliance, nor do they address the constitutionality of NSA programs as a whole. Also, Milgram demonstrates the ease of obtaining compliance from employees without regard to the ethical nature of the activity to be performed.
2. Show some proof. Your appeal to authority rests on your assertion that you were "in the NSA." So, you have at least two claims to show proof for, first, that you were an NSA employee with access to information regarding compliance, and some credible or authenticated compliance data supporting your claim. You may not like my request that you perform some impossible feat. My request is no less ridiculous than your expectation that I believe any of the unsupported (and false[2]) claims you've made.
>Awesome. NSA does not watchlist people.
1. Another unsupported claim. 2. I never said that NSA does, I said that the NSA passes information to domestic law enforcement; though I find it hard to believe that there are no target lists of any kind.
>All in all, I find your response to be composed of pure internet anger and no factual content.
I find your participation in discussions regarding NSA/gov't surveillance offensive and lacking in credibility without advance disclosure of your past/current affiliation.
Yeah =( Even though I absorb a lot of the privacy anger going on right now, I feel it's my duty to bring a voice that is knowledgeable about the subject matter, and try to eliminate a lot of the misinformation that is floating around in regards to this situation.
1. A low-level former NSA employee isn't credible as an authoritative source for all things NSA, especially if you offer nothing to independently support your assertions.
2. To be credible, disclose your affiliation(s) in advance or at the moment you join a discussion.
As a peaceful protest / 4th Amendment exercise, please consider attaching an encrypted file with EVERY email you send from now on.
It's easy enough to do using TrueCrypt.
It needn't be a file the recipient needs to decrypt, or keep.
You needn't even remember the password.
If everyone did this every time they send an email to anyone, it would flood the Internet with literally millions, then billions, of encrypted files, thereby demonstrating our resolve to maintain some level of privacy, and protecting most if not all of us "fish" in the "school" from the "sharks" who prefer to eat us one at a time (a la Edward Snowden and Ladar Levison).
When fish in a massive school move together in coordinated ways, it frustrates predators.
If this idea seems worthwhile PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
> "Were we to provide positive or negative responses to requests such as yours, our adversaries' compilation of the information provided would reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."
Not surprising. They're obviously trying to prevent the situation where Mr Terrorist or Ms Spy makes a FOIA request for their file and—because the NSA has been handing out files containing non-compromising evidence to anyone who asks—the NSA has to either:
- Lie, and say they don't have a file (probably not plausible, and maybe illegal under FOIA)
- Construct a fake file (expensive, and similarly might be illegal)
- Hand over the true file, revealing what they know about the bad guys
- Refuse to hand over the file, revealing that they know something incriminating, and that it's time for Ms Spy to disappear for a while
In information theory, and therefore espionage, you can't unask a question.
There is a gulf of a difference between a private business tracking its users and customers for business purposes, which you may opt out of by not dealing with said business, and your government tracking its citizens for criminal purposes, which you don't have the option of electing out of.
Surely you're not suggesting that the government's secret tracking weapon is Google Analytics. The tracking that the government is doing is not going to be visible to or blockable by end users. But hey, if it makes you feel safe, use ghostery and clear your cookies every hour. There's no way they can track you then!
Illicit tracking by the government is a definite problem. I think that even in these times, you have to have your tinfoil hat on a little too tight to think that advertising cookies are the bogeyman here.
Did I say it was the only tracking method they use? Of course the US government also uses non-blocking techniques like wire tapping, snooping, hacking etc.
However, today Google has all the information about users that the US government can use as a good complement to an already vast spying organization.
Google has information about your emails, friends, search queries, page you visit, documents and files you store, clips you watch, medical records etc.
Are you telling me that the US government is not interested in this information and the reports of NSA plugging its system into private businesses was just a hoax?
I cannot speak for the OP, but it seems entirely clear to me that one of the government's secret tracking weapons is by acquiring access to data collected by facebook, google and every other US company out there.
Are you suggesting that this is not the case? that seems to me to be a remarkable conclusion to draw?
Surely you're not suggesting that the government and corporate interests are completely unrelated, and no money ever goes back and forth for good or services?
Wasn't it Google that optimized the NSA datacenters as early as 2005? I think its safe to assume that many of Google analytics' bigger customers are not corporate. Not to mention, of course, Google Earth which was developed with CIA money... but also needed some optimization (read, better developers). I am pretty sure that Google Earth was not a loss leader for the company ;)
I think that, amazingly in these times, you're sucking down your naivety cool aid a little too plaicidly to think that advertising cookies are not the optimal tracking method for both corp and govt.
While I agree that there is a "gulf of difference" between tracking people by private business and by the NSA, I trust private business much less than I trust the NSA.
Such web sites can not arrest, render, kidnap, or torture me. The US gov can. I get a little icon telling me when and how I'm being tracked by websites, I do not have one that tells me the NSA is tracking me.
Of course it is. That is why the US government goes to the private company to get your information instead of going to you directly, because that would be a violation of privacy.
The economic model for this is called corporatism, which incidentally is the same as for fascism.
Depends on the site. Talk to Steve Jackson. Or Aaron Swartz (better hire a psychic, he's dead). Or Weev.
And if you think that private companies and/or web sites didn't play a huge role in any of the above cases ... well, you and I inhabit different universes.
As others have pointed out: private companies can collect and/or process information that governments uses. They're also susceptible to hacking by government or rogue agents: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Apple have all been targeted by Chinese government-related hackers (mostly looking for Faulun Gong and Tibetian activists).
Other companies such as Cisco simply hand over the tools authoritarian states request.
Indeed, but to be fair those are standard for dailydot pages, I don't think they have a way for an author to opt out of the tracking for any specific page.
Hopefully zero, however everyone of them uses cookies and when I do read my email or use some other confidential service I can be sure that trackers is included there as well. That is how it works.
before sombody mentions that its not reading your email if an automatic script does it, that sounds suspiciously like the argument that the NSA is not intercepting communications until they are viewed.
<quote>The NSA has admitted, separately, that it employs a practice called "contact chaining." That means that if one of their targets calls someone, who in turn calls someone else, who in turn calls you, agency's checking you out.</quote>
Ah. So when you get an appointment reminder from your dentist, you might just have been chained with a suspect who called that same dentist earlier. Or maybe your girl/boy-friend works at Domino's on the side and called you from there, and it so happens a suspect is one of their customers.... congrats, NSA file for you.
If you follow the link the author set on the NSA asking "My NSA" to stop offering semi-automated filings, it's clear that the NSA isn't trying to coerce or intimidate, but rather is simply pointing out that the service doesn't actually work, because it generates noncompliant filings that NSA is prevented by law from even acknowledging.
That's one hop away, on a link this author chose for the story, and yet I'm left wondering whether the author even read it.
Seriously, what a gimmick of a title. The whole article had no new information and his tone sounded like speculation and complaint that he didn't get some sort of special treatment.
The EFF publishes a Surveillance Self-Defense resource I'd strongly recommend. The tools page: https://ssd.eff.org/tech
Essentially: encryption, self-hosting, small-scale hosting (the NSA have scaling problems with vendors, though don't expect that to last), privacy tools including browser privacy (privoxy), tor, VPNs, the FreedomBox, and others.
I saw a website that that was devoted to writing up a request, you just entered in your name, address, etc. and it would write up a formal request for you. They said they had a few hits, but at an extremely low success rate (maybe a dozen responses, after thousands or tens of thousands of requests) -- although the successful responses were self-reported, so they may or may not be legit. It was on hacker news a few months ago, but I can't seem to find it.
> "Were we to provide positive or negative responses to requests such as yours, our adversaries' compilation of the information provided would reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."
Please stop polluting the front page with Snowden and NSA related stuff unless it adds something new. This is just a fluff article which helps you read along an automated government response. At least link directly to the scribd document next time.
Hackers News works on basis of votes. The submitter added a link to something that the person thought was interesting. 69 other people agree. Thus there is no pollution, you're just do not want to see it. That's different.
But to stonewall the general public on legitimate requests like these will cause people to use their fantasy as to what those capabilities really are, and that will likely overshoot reality. In that case any information the NSA is likely interested in will go underground so far that they won't be able to get at it in time to prevent damage.
On the other hand if they come clean and it will turn out to be (much) worse than people expected (and there is a good chance of this) then they will likely be reigned in diminishing their capability.
So they are damned either way.
Stonewalling is likely an indication that there is much more hidden than we know about today, otherwise coming clean would actually make them look better.
The best thing for the NSA would be for this whole thing to go away, organizations like that only work when they can do so in comparative secrecy. As soon as the spotlight is aimed at them some of their effectiveness (and in the case of the NSA likely quite a bit of it) will evaporate.
Those pesky foreign media and their relentless releases. Funny how the Guardian is the best place to get information about a United States institution, how Russian dissidents would move to the US and how a US whistleblower is now living in Russia.
It seems our (the general public) best chance in getting some progress in these matters is to play out nation states against each other.
I have no idea where this is all going but I could do with less surveillance in the name of (the war on) terror and a more constructive approach to geopolitical affairs to replace the 'might makes right' policy that we have today.