8 ms·

> 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

> 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? I think he was not really telling the truth. And I don't mean that he intended to be dishonest, but rather, he was trying to explain the issue as he understood it in a simplified manner. My understanding is that he did not actually have access to XKEYSCORE and other tools, so he did not known how they actually worked and the associated red tape. He could only go by what the presentation slides that he downloaded from NSA had said (I am assuming that those slides did not describe much regarding the associated red tape because it was meant for those who had already been read in and had access to the program so they would have already been fully aware of the legal and compliance side of things, along with continuous training and review of the Constitution). Snowden had to get the materials regarding programs he didn't have access to by authenticating with the smartcard/PKI of colleagues who did have access to those systems (Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/NSA_Snowden_Memo.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/NSA_Snowden_...). > Which agency is the process you described applicable to? NSA. I don't think there would be another agency with access to this alleged wiretap. > Are you certain it is the same in other agencies? I am not certain. I do believe it is the case though, as my understanding is that DoD and IC IG have this authority not specifically NSA (If you are aware of an agency not properly protecting USPI as they should be, the IC IG would definitely want to hear about it, I am very serious). > Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials? I am not aware of any, so definitely cannot conclude that they do not exist. There could possibly be a case to be made there, as the "data" versus "metadata" debate awhile back demonstrated that some things are interpreted in a way that could allow for overreach. I personally don't think it is productive to assume that loopholes were utilized until there is evidence of that. Additionally, any loophole would be for accessing the information but the way the system is setup at least these days would not allow for that to occur without an audit trail ("tag the people, tag the data!"). > the FISA warrant argument If I understand correctly, the following still could have happened and I don't know if anyone has disputed it: 1. Trump associate spoke to someone who was subject to FISA collection or regular collection of a foreign target of interest. 2. Topic was discussed which specifically related to the US Person (Trump associate) which was serious enough to warrant de-minimization of the USPI. 3. The proper process was followed, and the evidence was solid enough to de-minimize the US Person's side of the conversation. This interestingly would mean that (1) it was serious enough to warrant de-minimization but not enough to be conclusive proof of malice, which is something that anti-Trump folks would not want to hear, and (2) it was a discussion of interest involving an intelligence collection target, which is something that pro-Trup folks would not want to hear. Therefore this potential exact scenario is not within the interest of either side and I have not heard it discussed much. There are many possibilities, some which are politically convenient to either side, others which are not convenient to either side. It might be mildly amusing to discuss but as far as I understand, an actual investigation into this is going to occur and either we will get answers to all of this based on a comprehensive audit of those who accessed the intercepts and/or was responsible for the tasking.

grandalf 10y ago
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wish Snowden were a participant on HN so he could address the specific detail points. One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump. It seems plausible that since Obama was willing to impose last-minute sanctions on Russia and expel diplomats only weeks before leaving office, his administration might have also been pressured into explicitly investigating allegations of improper association between Trump and Russia via surveillance. If such an investigation had been initiated and turned up any damning evidence, it is quite likely Trump would not have been sworn in as president. I interpret Obama's willingness to impose sanctions and expel diplomats as an indication of how much pressure he was under to use his power to intervene in what was viewed by many as the effective rigging of an election. I am not a Trump supporter, so I don't make this point in defense of Trump, merely as a possible indication of the amount of pressure Obama was under in his final days in office.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  I think the pressure operated in reverse. That is, under normal circumstances, the election meddling, the associate connections, the pro-Russia rhetoric, etc. naturally warranted an investigation/response as a matter of national security. No pressure would be required. Likewise, public revelations about some of this stuff (in particular, the attack on our democracy) clearly could not go unchecked, thus warranting the sanctions and diplomatic expulsions. However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically. Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party. But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it. Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.

grandalf 10y ago

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wish Snowden were a participant on HN so he could address the specific detail points. One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump. It seems plausible that since Obama was willing to impose last-minute sanctions on Russia and expel diplomats only weeks before leaving office, his administration might have also been pressured into explicitly investigating allegations of improper association between Trump and Russia via surveillance. If such an investigation had been initiated and turned up any damning evidence, it is quite likely Trump would not have been sworn in as president. I interpret Obama's willingness to impose sanctions and expel diplomats as an indication of how much pressure he was under to use his power to intervene in what was viewed by many as the effective rigging of an election. I am not a Trump supporter, so I don't make this point in defense of Trump, merely as a possible indication of the amount of pressure Obama was under in his final days in office.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
unclebucknasty 10y ago
I think the pressure operated in reverse. That is, under normal circumstances, the election meddling, the associate connections, the pro-Russia rhetoric, etc. naturally warranted an investigation/response as a matter of national security. No pressure would be required. Likewise, public revelations about some of this stuff (in particular, the attack on our democracy) clearly could not go unchecked, thus warranting the sanctions and diplomatic expulsions. However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically. Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party. But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it. Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.