6 ms·

> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case You mean,

> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans? If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administrations to enable spying to protect national security.". It's the primary function of the NSA.

grandalf 10y ago
> If that's the type of monitoring you mean Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant. > holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me" For what it's worth though, I do think the lowly "average Joe" you mention does deserve to be quite irate about his fourth amendment rights being thrown away.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  > Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump This is not true. The system will not allow you to just query a US Person, and will automatically flag such requests for review if you try to do so. Even if an analyst conducted "reverse targeting" (Querying a foreign person who the US Person was communicating with), the US Person's information within the intercept(s) is automatically minimized and specific approval would be needed to de-anonymize it, including solid proof that the US Person was actually acting as a foreign adversary, such as a spy. I have no ability to argue that there is not a conspiracy involving multiple people in NSA approving these and OGC turning a blind eye to it and the senate intel committee ignoring it and so on, that is not impossible I suppose, but the reality is very far from simply having the ability to go ahead and wiretap Trump with ease. > and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant. There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI"). This is good, because if you do believe that something awry is going on, you can push for a very specific cause: Put together an independent committee of representatives, have them go through the security clearance process (for those who have not already done so) to be read-in on any necessary SCI compartments to review the data, and conduct a thorough investigation regarding the audit trails of any query regarding Trump and/or associates. I personally find this to be far-fetched, but it is at least a tangible action which you and anyone who shares the belief can push for.
  - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
    How do you know this?
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI"). What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other? Assuming you have knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work: - Which agency is the process you described applicable to? - Are you certain it is the same in other agencies? - Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials? I do not have a belief one way or another about whether Trump was "wiretapped". My intent was to apply the logical consequence of the Snowden revelations to the issue being discussed, and flag the FISA warrant argument as a straw man.
    - squallviii 10y ago
      Here's another perspective on Snowden's claims https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/exclusive/first-cipher-brief-snowdens-boss-shares-lessons-learned-1095 https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/exclusive/first-ciphe... He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. This is why you don't see raw intelligence from his leaks. From my own experiences working at the agency, GP is correct in that very few people can task FISA data.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        > He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type filesHe was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself. My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on. Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other instances of large caches of leaked material suggest that there are not effective internal controls. As a thought experiment, I'd suggest that the small size of teams required to maintain security, combined with a 'need to know' rule, results in an environment where creating an internal audit trail puts operational security at risk, and so it is avoided. All the anti-Trump leaks suggest that this is true, since surely Trump would have asked who had access to the leaked information, and the list would have been small enough (b/c of need-to-know) that he could have made a spectacle of the leaker.
mason240 10y ago
It's extremely disingenuous to characterize his role as "continued policy begun by previous administration" when his Vice President wrote the core legislation of the Patriot Act, he was actively working to expand those policies for 8 years, and one of his very last acts was to issue an EO further entrenching them.
- optimuspaul 10y ago
  Citations needed.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bendbro 10y ago
    Here's some literature on the Omnibus, Mr. Optimus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act... https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting-record/ https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-v...
- rand77763 10y ago
  And then he lied to the American people about the FREEDOM Act. Claimed it was some type of reform.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  Both parties have expanded the powers of the agencies. That's no secret.
ComradeTaco 10y ago
Trump is amusing. He'll say something absolutely obscene, then his surrogates will say that he meant something different and slightly less obscene. Then supporters will go to great lengths to translate his words into an extremely favorable reading that actually isn't obscene at all. We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  >We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says. Policy disagreements with Trump aside, I find that actually kind of refreshing.
  - waqf 10y ago
    I think a lot of people do, but it's best not to rate it too highly. It's a lot easier to communicate clearly and effectively when your propositions are simple, and it's a lot easier to have simple propositions when you're not constrained by the evidence. That's pretty much the whole story of demagoguery and why it continues to work.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      > demagoguery Well, if President Trump actually does serve the common people, it will be a wondrous thing.
      - weaksauce 10y ago
        > A demagogue ... is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Where is he doing anything other than furthering his interests?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
giardini 10y ago
unityByFreedom says: " Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me"." No, because at any time Obama could have terminated the process and asked for legislation to dismantle the means.

grandalf 10y ago

> If that's the type of monitoring you mean Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant. > holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me" For what it's worth though, I do think the lowly "average Joe" you mention does deserve to be quite irate about his fourth amendment rights being thrown away.

willstrafach 10y ago
> Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump This is not true. The system will not allow you to just query a US Person, and will automatically flag such requests for review if you try to do so. Even if an analyst conducted "reverse targeting" (Querying a foreign person who the US Person was communicating with), the US Person's information within the intercept(s) is automatically minimized and specific approval would be needed to de-anonymize it, including solid proof that the US Person was actually acting as a foreign adversary, such as a spy. I have no ability to argue that there is not a conspiracy involving multiple people in NSA approving these and OGC turning a blind eye to it and the senate intel committee ignoring it and so on, that is not impossible I suppose, but the reality is very far from simply having the ability to go ahead and wiretap Trump with ease. > and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant. There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI"). This is good, because if you do believe that something awry is going on, you can push for a very specific cause: Put together an independent committee of representatives, have them go through the security clearance process (for those who have not already done so) to be read-in on any necessary SCI compartments to review the data, and conduct a thorough investigation regarding the audit trails of any query regarding Trump and/or associates. I personally find this to be far-fetched, but it is at least a tangible action which you and anyone who shares the belief can push for.
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  How do you know this?
- grandalf 10y ago
  > There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI"). What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other? Assuming you have knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work: - Which agency is the process you described applicable to? - Are you certain it is the same in other agencies? - Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials? I do not have a belief one way or another about whether Trump was "wiretapped". My intent was to apply the logical consequence of the Snowden revelations to the issue being discussed, and flag the FISA warrant argument as a straw man.
  - squallviii 10y ago
    Here's another perspective on Snowden's claims https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/exclusive/first-cipher-brief-snowdens-boss-shares-lessons-learned-1095 https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/exclusive/first-ciphe... He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. This is why you don't see raw intelligence from his leaks. From my own experiences working at the agency, GP is correct in that very few people can task FISA data.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type filesHe was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself. My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on. Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other instances of large caches of leaked material suggest that there are not effective internal controls. As a thought experiment, I'd suggest that the small size of teams required to maintain security, combined with a 'need to know' rule, results in an environment where creating an internal audit trail puts operational security at risk, and so it is avoided. All the anti-Trump leaks suggest that this is true, since surely Trump would have asked who had access to the leaked information, and the list would have been small enough (b/c of need-to-know) that he could have made a spectacle of the leaker.

mason240 10y ago

It's extremely disingenuous to characterize his role as "continued policy begun by previous administration" when his Vice President wrote the core legislation of the Patriot Act, he was actively working to expand those policies for 8 years, and one of his very last acts was to issue an EO further entrenching them.

optimuspaul 10y ago
Citations needed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bendbro 10y ago
  Here's some literature on the Omnibus, Mr. Optimus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act... https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting-record/ https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-v...
rand77763 10y ago
And then he lied to the American people about the FREEDOM Act. Claimed it was some type of reform.
unityByFreedom 10y ago
Both parties have expanded the powers of the agencies. That's no secret.

ComradeTaco 10y ago

Trump is amusing. He'll say something absolutely obscene, then his surrogates will say that he meant something different and slightly less obscene. Then supporters will go to great lengths to translate his words into an extremely favorable reading that actually isn't obscene at all. We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.

Consultant32452 10y ago
>We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says. Policy disagreements with Trump aside, I find that actually kind of refreshing.
- waqf 10y ago
  I think a lot of people do, but it's best not to rate it too highly. It's a lot easier to communicate clearly and effectively when your propositions are simple, and it's a lot easier to have simple propositions when you're not constrained by the evidence. That's pretty much the whole story of demagoguery and why it continues to work.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    > demagoguery Well, if President Trump actually does serve the common people, it will be a wondrous thing.
    - weaksauce 10y ago
      > A demagogue ... is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Where is he doing anything other than furthering his interests?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]

giardini 10y ago

unityByFreedom says: " Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me"." No, because at any time Obama could have terminated the process and asked for legislation to dismantle the means.