Obama presents NSA reforms with plan to end government storage of call data(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Obama presents NSA reforms with plan to end government storage of call data
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/obama-nsa-reforms-end-storage-americans-call-data
14 comments
No, its something. Its saying the U.S. spymasters will not spy on Germany's spymasters without getting the approval of the secret U.S. kangaroo court. I dont know about you but I'm feeling more confident in the system already.
> Wow, this is a whole lot of nothing. Instead of recognizing the problem of having secret Star Chamber-ish courts in the first place
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?
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?
> Mass storage of phone conversations doesn't appear to be ended, just shuffled off to some private contractor instead of being NSA-internal.
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.
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.
"… because nothing in that initial review, and nothing i have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or be cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens." - Obama
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.
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.
This isn't a line. Everything I've seen in the leaks indicates an intent by the NSA to try and stay within the contours of the law. They are allowed to collect whatever foreign data they want, and they are, at least based on reasonable interpretations of existing precedents, allowed to collect metadata about phone calls.
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.
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.
Everything I've seen has been a consistent effort by the NSA to eviscerate the intent of fundamental laws through clever loopholes of various implementations and rulings, often from completely different contexts.
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.
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.
Smith v. Maryland squarely says that your privacy interest in your phone calls ends to the extent that your phone call metadata is exposed to third parties. That's not a "loophole" it's a delineation of the boundary of the right. And leveraging Smith v. Maryland isn't taking advantage of a loophole in a "completely different context" but rather applying the reasoning of the case in the same context in which the case arose: is it a search to collect the meta-data of a phone call from the phone company? You may think Smith v. Maryland needs to be overturned, but for now, the NSA is entitled to rely on it.
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.
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.
What exactly is the point you're trying to make here? That this is all legal? They have at least violated the SPIRIT of the law.
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...
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...
> What exactly is the point you're trying to make here? That this is all legal? They have at least violated the SPIRIT of the law.
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.
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.
I think his point is that ultimately what matters is whether these abilities are being abused, particularly for something like political ends - so far we've seen only a few isolated cases towards personal ends(and the nsa did not protect those people). Given the size of the organization I think it's safe to say that that is within the bounds of statistical probability.
What about the interpretation that something that is illegal for them to do isn't illegal when a machine does it, but only becomes illegal when a human gets involved?
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.
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.
I think that interpretation is very weak, but as far as I can tell, it's not the basis for any of their programs, just an explanation offered to support their minimization procedures, which are probably inadequate. Legally, that seems to be the issue: they have procedures in place to try and only collect foreign data, but American data gets caught up in the net too and their procedures for filtering out American data aren't good enough. That's bad, but I don't think it evinces an intent to actively ignore the law.
What's the legality of spying on our allies? Aren't treaties supposed to be law once ratified?
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).
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).
Well, apparently you didn't look hard enough, then.
"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
"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
My problem with these agencies being 'allowed to collect whatever foreign data they want', means that it means that governments can get any data they want on any person.
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.
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.
> Mounting a forceful defence of the NSA, Obama said: "They’re not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls, or read your emails."
Yes, they are. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-sp...
Yes, they are. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-sp...
Just to play devil's advocate - I think he's talking about the NSA as a whole as a matter of policy, not these notably but otherwise isolated exceptions. It would simply be impractical and largely useless to listen to every average joe's conversations.
Also, is there any respite to be had considering the IG was aware of that particular case? Isn't that ideal?
Also, is there any respite to be had considering the IG was aware of that particular case? Isn't that ideal?
> I think he's talking about the NSA as a whole as a matter of policy
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.
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.
So, follow through. The NSA is abusing its abilities on a systematic basis - to spy on the personal lives of average people? For political purposes?
That's what have been found, or what was let out, no? How much does the internal watchdog wants to keep this numbers reaaaally low.. is it really adversarial?
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...
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...
I also imagine that when people are working in the intelligence industry, they have more to fear for crossing boundaries than a normal employee at a normal company.
What's the IG and were they aware of?
From what I can see there are no controls in place and the only transgressions that are found out are those that are investigated or freely admitted to.
The Inspector General, in this case of the NSA. Basically an internal watchdog. They were aware of at least 12 cases of abuse according to the article.
How did they come to be aware of them? The information was volunteered or investigations comissioned at the behest of victims.
So... follow through with this. A significant portion of the NSA are abusing their powers to spy on average people?
An unknown amount of the NSA are.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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 data shouldn't be collected in the first place.
The data shouldn't be collected in the first place.
"Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not 'one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'' Katz v. United States, 389 U. S., at 361. This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. E. g., United States v. Miller, 425 U. S., at 442-444; Couch v. United States, 409 U. S., at 335-336; United States v. White, 401 U. S., at 752 (plurality opinion); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 302 (1966); Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963). In Miller, for example, the Court held that a bank depositor has no 'legitimate `expectation of privacy'' in financial information 'voluntarily conveyed to . . . banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.' 425 U. S., at 442." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-744 (1979).
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.
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.
Really, not even when building, say, a RICO case against the mob?
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.
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.
Get a warrant. You can get evidence using one.
Warrant requires probable cause.
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.
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.
Then so be it.
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.
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.
> Plenty of criminals have been caught using traditional detective work.
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.
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.
And that is the cost to living in a free society: occasionally you have to deal with violent assholes.
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.
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.
Oh oh, while you are at it can you give us the "ticking bomb" justification of torture to? It's been a while since I've heard it; it's always worth a good laugh. I love ridiculous shit like this.
I think we're all well aware that if the authorities were able to implement a perfectly omniscient surveillance network then it would effectively solve all manner of crimes.
The point is, we don't want it.
The point is, we don't want it.
Yes, that's why they refer to the balance between privacy and security instead of all-or-nothing concepts.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
> You're missing the fundamental point that we don't think the government should have this power.
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.
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.
It is no strawman. You're advocating that the government be given unfettered access to information that would normally require a warrant in order to be given permission to get a warrant.
> You're advocating that the government be given unfettered access to information
Where have I advocated completely unfettered access? I'd be interested to see that.
Where have I advocated completely unfettered access? I'd be interested to see that.
Oh right, not unfettered access, just access when somebody has a "hunch". Very different!
Did you even read what I wrote, or is pattern-matching against text all you're able to do in these threads?
Give to to me straight: Do you think that a search warrant should be obtained before violating the privacy of Abdi Zullah?
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.
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.
> Give to to me straight: Do you think that a search warrant should be obtained before violating the privacy of Abdi Zullah?
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.
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.
Nobody ever said police work is easy, or is suppose to be easy. There are a number of rights that we could dispense with to make their job easier. Imagine how easy their job could be if they could go wherever they pleased, and detain and interrogate whoever they pleased for as long as they pleased.
"And oh, this is all just a hunch, we've got no evidence at all for this yet."
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.
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.
> You'd be laughed out of court, and rightfully so.
I included the last sentence of my comment since you apparently missed it the first time.
I included the last sentence of my comment since you apparently missed it the first time.
I agree that some kind of permission from a judge is needed for oversight.
Okay, not to single you out, but after months and months, this is really getting on my nerves:
> 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.
> 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.
You're not wrong, but the situation is complicated by "reins" often being used to talk metaphorically about being in control. Alexander is "at the reins" of the NSA. Obama "took the reins" during his first inauguration.
Yes, I believe that is the origin of the phrase "reined in". Reining in is the act of pulling on the reins to stop a horse.
Well, I'd say that "reining in" refers to pulling back on the reins to stop the horse, while being "at the reins" or "having the reins" refers to merely possessing them (they could be used to stop the horse, or turn the horse, or have it speed up, etc).
Just something I'd like to toss out for consideration. Can RICO be used against the NSA itself? A second approach: target NSA contractors for RICO violation?
patrickmay: "The data shouldn't be collected in the first place."
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.
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.
Wow, I'm literally not sure if this is satire or not.
It's not satire.
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.
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.
Right after they close gitmo.
He completely ignored all the recommendations of the panel he appointed to give him recommendations.
He completely ignored all the recommendations of the panel he appointed to give him recommendations.
He boldly took no action to confront a problem he didn't want to confront at a time not of his choosing because of a person he doesn't like.
Prove it mr. president! How do we know the calls won't be stored? The stuff the NSA is doing is already illegal but I doubt anyone other than whistle blowers will go to prison.
Why would the executive branch curtail its own power?
If data like this requires a bureaucracy to generate, you might be able to protect it with a bureaucracy. If it's collected automatically and stored in one place, it is considerably harder to protect.
Oh no, I thought for sure he would fix everything after he found out about the spying. The NSA must be blackmailing him! Maybe the Supreme Court will swoop in and rescue us. Or maybe Hillary in 2016. Someone has to! I am on the verge of tears right now!!
Let's start a Facebook group - Gmail me!
Let's start a Facebook group - Gmail me!
But Internet data is still fair game?
So the data will be handed over to the likes of Booz Allen Hamilton, who as Snowden showed have a stellar record at keeping secrets.
Bullcock.
Bullcock.
Here is a quote from a NYTimes article from 2011 that sheds light on the targets of the military industrial complex at the end of 2010[1]. The industries various components don't always align to the governments side, more towards the interest of profits and profit interests:
'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...
'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...
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.