10 ms·

NSA says warrantless searches of Americans’ data rose in 2018

162 points by 0xmohit 7y ago

sarcasmatwork 7y ago
Has there been a single incident where the NSA stopped any terrorist attacks, mass shootings etc? There is SO much data that its entirely possible the NSA can't screen everything thus things slip though. This is still a clear violation of the 4th amendment imho.
- bellerose 7y ago
  I'm skeptical of the image against terrorists being just a facade. I theorize the massive data collection is for studying psychological patterns in society.
  - bediger4000 7y ago
    I, too, am skeptical. I theorize that the massive data collection is for control purposes. But watch out - the first people to come under surveillance are those who object to surveillance. More seriously, if you google "jane harmon alberto gonzalez" you'll find a nice, complicated scandal from GW Bush years that never got the play it should have. Sure, Representative Harmon seems to have done some things wrong, but the real issue is "...Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez later quashed a DOJ investigation into this incident in order to secure Harman’s support for the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program." That's right, the Attorney General of the US might have (probably did) blackmail a US Representative, using surveillance data. We're all accustomed to autocratic executive branches now, but that's a bridge too far, if you ask me.
    - bellerose 7y ago
      I have no objection to surveillance if people are open about it and the information is accessible if reasonably needed. I honestly would rather live in a world that had cameras everywhere, including the rooms of my apartment and making victims actually have an opportunity to receive justice instead of the reality we live in today. Of course what I'm writing will be attacked because such a system is hard to design but it's not impossible and if it was made it could make it so the abused no longer be abused. Anyway I'm now in Canada because United States is only where the financially privileged get justice & healthcare.
    - tomjakubowski 7y ago
      When I googled "jane harmon alberto gonzalez" I found a lot of blog spam linking to Jeff Stein's original reporting on that, but Stein's article 404ed. Here it is, for the interested: http://web.archive.org/web/20090421090444/http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html?docID=hsnews-000003098436 http://web.archive.org/web/20090421090444/http://static.cqpo...
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  Yes, according to the NSA. Not surprisingly they're usually pretty coy about the details, which makes it hard to independently verify some of their claims. for example: NSA, over a two-year period, used Section 702 to develop a robust body of knowledge about the personal network of an individual providing support to a leading terrorist in Iraq and Syria. This "leading terrorist" practiced strict operational security, and thus it was necessary to study the target by identifying key operatives throughout his network to understand not only the plans and intentions of the terrorist leader, but also to attempt to track his movements. Section 702 collection provided the necessary information for tactical teams to conduct a successful military operation, removing the terrorist from the battlefield. This information was critical to the discovery and disruption of this threat to the U.S. and its allies.
  - mLuby 7y ago
    >an individual providing support to a leading terrorist in Iraq and Syria That's a pretty weak outcome for such egregious privacy violations. If they'd "stopped 17 plots to kill 100 or more Americans" then maybe I'd concede that the program is effective (though still immoral IMO).
    - zaroth 7y ago
      Allegedly, the FBI just thwarted a planned bombing in LA by an Army veteran. [1] Obviously all the operation details of how they found this guy are not disclosed, but there does appear to be undercover agents involved. There have been cases in the past where the FBI undercover agent has been a little too instrumental in developing the plan for the alleged attack, but it doesn’t appear that is the case in this instance. I would not be surprised if some sort of mass surveillance was instrumental in identifying / risk scoring this guy’s posting and flagging him for closer investigation. Not at all a supporter of these programs in general, but I wanted to try to answer your question. [1] - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/california-terror-plot-new-zealand-christchurch-attack https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/calif...
      - 7y ago
- moftz 7y ago
  It's likely that the massive surveillance infrastructure isn't for looking for certain words but to link individuals together and build graphs to explore relationships. During a wiretapped call that investigators are listening in on, a name in dropped. That name could then be run through the NSA's databases to produce not just how the target knows the new person but who that new person knows. There could be an entire terror cell operating totally unknown but unless something links one of the members to terrorism, all of those guys could just be a bowling club for all anyone knows.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  The more secret an agency is, the less likely you'll hear about the great achievements they've done for your country on the short term. On the long term, it might end up declassified. That's the conundrum of secret services. The public cannot possibly assess their performance. As for the needle in a haystack point. Bill Binney architected a system which was targeted. The NSA rejected it...
  - mLuby 7y ago
    >The public cannot possibly assess their performance. Respectfully, that's not true. Secret programs can still be judged on their inputs and outputs: eg "we spent $50B and averted 17 attacks, saving potentially 15,000 lives and $500B in economic damage." What possible information can that give an adversary?
    - irishcoffee 7y ago
      I consider it more like the defense of American football. A good defense is good. They could not allow the opposing offense to score any points all game. What should the defense claim? "We prevented 21 points from being scored!" No. They have no idea how many points they prevented. NSA is a thankless organization. You don't know all the things they've done well, and they get blamed whenever anything bad happens.
      - jackpirate 7y ago
        It's pretty straightforward to quantify how good a football defensive team is. > We had 5 sacks, 3 interceptions, and limited the opposing offense to 200yards gained. Is obviously better than > We had 0 sacks, 0 interceptions, and the opposing offense took 400 yards. Even if in both games the opposing offense scored the same number of points.
        irishcoffee 7y ago
        I agree, it's not a perfect analogy. I think the point stands.
- identity-haver 7y ago
  They probably don't want to publicize their methods, and they might not have to due to parallel construction -- we may never know what they've stopped. There's not a lot of oversight here: they're also spying on Congress and civil servants and every time a terrorist attack or mass shooting happens, they get more money and more power whether they've stopped any other attacks or not. In the unlikely event that someone told them to stop because the 4th amendment was violated, they would just have someone in an intelligence-sharing agreement like Five Eyes get the same data and send it over.
- mindslight 7y ago
  This isn't the right question to ask, as it presumes that efficacy would be a justification. Totalitarianism is never okay, regardless of its effect on crime.
  - java-man 7y ago
    people who benefit financially or politically might disagree.
    - mindslight 7y ago
      Yes, obviously someone financially or politically benefiting from totalitarianism would disagree, as they want it to continue to the detriment of everyone else. Which is why it's important to not give them any possible ammunition like "hey it did actually stop this one rando, so it's really for your own good".
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > This is still a clear violation of the 4th amendment imho. How? The Fourth Amendment says nothing about collecting the communications of specific non-Americans living outside the US that are believed to have foreign intelligence value (Section 702 collection). Searching that data with queries for specific US people under investigation is at worst a gray area.
zigzaggy 7y ago
Warrantless searches will continue to rise, as will the other forms of surveillance, data collection, etc. as long as we let it happen. As long as most people don't really understand the technology, and it's implications, the government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then lose the data in breaches. Not many people I know would trust the government enough to let them do what they're doing if they truly understood. I think by the time we - as a society - realize all of the the implications, it will be much too late. In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive collection of intimate data.
- 50656E6973 7y ago
  >As long as most people don't really understand the technology, and it's implications, the government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then lose the data in breaches. Why are you only concerned about the government accruing mass troves of data, then losing them in breaches? >In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive collection of intimate data. While I'm inclined to agree, there are many people who happily give up the most intimate details of their lives for extremely small conveniences.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    I think it's biological. Herding creatures have to have the majority of the population be highly maleable to the influence of the pack leader(s). This means that with the majority of the population, reason, thinking and ideas just don't penetrate well. It's all about going along and getting along. Ideas can only be considered if group think is rejected.
    - themacguffinman 7y ago
      How ridiculously patronizing. Could it be that privacy arguments flogged to death on HN don't connect to the reality of the majority of people? Or that the arguments are not being expressed in an relatable or understandable way? Or that they share different values than you? No, it's the children who are wrong. I'm sure it's just group-think that blinds them to your brilliant ideas.
wybiral 7y ago
The weird part to me is that the US Intelligence Community is using Tumblr for communicating these reports to the public.
- java-man 7y ago
  ... for the reasons of national security, of course.
- oil25 7y ago
  It seems to be part of a larger PR effort to appear socially acceptable and relatable in a post-Snowden world.
- throwaway66666 7y ago
  Now imagine being an angsty teenager looking for harry potter erotic fanfic and stumbling onto the NSA's director tumblr. They 're onto us, you 'll think in a flash of paranoia. As if a swat team is in your house.
thatoneuser 7y ago
Did anyone expect it to do anything but rise? They have power and they want more. Pick up that can citizen.
craftinator 7y ago
I'd vote for the NSA to be disbanded, all personnel fired, all equipment destroyed. Would anyone else vote for that?
- thrwaway190430 7y ago
  regarding the stuff they already have: doesn't whatever they have have huge historical value? it could be the difference between being a lost civilization and being well-preserved. I'm not saying it should continue but if I could vote between destroying it or putting it on mars in a time capsule to be opened in 1,000 years I'd probably choose the latter. (not saying collection should continue.) humanity has zero qualms about reading historical letters among famous people but these days it's all digital so we would be a lost civilization otherwise. I don't know if it has access to this stuff but if it does wouldn't it be better to put it somewhere for the future? Though the way we have no qualms about opening Pharaohs' tombs in Egypt presumably we can't count on our direct descendents not opening it early either. I don't know how anyone can make a legit time capsule. what do you think? better to destroy all that data?
  - somebodythere 7y ago
    If a government agency openly announced, today, that they would be indiscriminately collecting phone and internet data from Americans for the express purpose of putting it in a time capsule to be opened in 1,000 years, would you be pleased? (FWIW, I would not.)
    - thrwaway190430 7y ago
      No. (And I think it should stop, if it's happening.) If a trove of private correspondence is found from an ancient civilization, that was clearly not meant for disseminatuon but intercepted unlawfully, do you think we should destroy it? I think it's okay to answer this question in the negative. But an argument could be made that people should have a right to privacy unbroken even by long posterity. What do you think of that question?
sfsfsf6666 7y ago
If the NSA were a noble creature, we could rest easy. There is no nobility in our governments though. No grace. They'll often trade data, up and down, with local governments, and the local governments can benefit from that federal warrantless data. When the state of Arizona sweeps up all the non-licensed manicurists in Phoenix, and you're wondering "How the hell did Sheriff Billy Bob know about all these people..." When you hear that really bad people will only be the targets of 4th amendment violations, don't be naive. Don't believe a word of it. And don't forget that government finds low hanging fruit absolutely delicious. "Look at what we got done." -says some random bureaucrat. While collecting some of the fattest pensions this side of the industrial revolution.
- mkdirdaniel 7y ago
  Truth, eloquently said.
- deytempo 7y ago
  You had me at “fattest pensions this side of the industrial revolution” lol
- shawndumas 7y ago
  “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.”
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  It's all about establishing trust. These faceless entities will never make a public display of their egregious misuse of private information, so citizens will continue to hand over information that they wouldn't dream of personally giving to a stranger.
mkdirdaniel 7y ago
Regarding data collection, it's hard to make people care. It's like smoking or (some) drugs; as long as the effect is gradual and not immediate, people won't care. It takes someone who values freedom and privacy, and/or tech savvy folks that understand the implications of data collection, to actually care. It's unfortunate, but most are not even willing to take 15 minutes and re-configure the settings on their phone to increase privacy. For more people to care, I think it'll have to affect them directly, in a negative and embarrassing way.
parliament32 7y ago
I thought the source link was a joke at first... why is US Intelligence publishing releases on Tumblr, of all places? >Additional public information on national security authorities is available at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s website, www.dni.gov, the Intelligence Community’s public website, www.intel.gov, and ODNI’s public Tumblr site, IC on the Record at IContheRecord.tumblr.com.
OrgNet 7y ago
Are they proud of it? What is going on? They used to lie about this stuff. Maybe they are trying to pin this law on Trump? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/way-nsa-uses-section-702-deeply-troubling-heres-why https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/way-nsa-uses-section-7...

162 points by 0xmohit 7y ago

Has there been a single incident where the NSA stopped any terrorist attacks, mass shootings etc? There is SO much data that its entirely possible the NSA can't screen everything thus things slip though. This is still a clear violation of the 4th amendment imho.

bellerose 7y ago
I'm skeptical of the image against terrorists being just a facade. I theorize the massive data collection is for studying psychological patterns in society.
- bediger4000 7y ago
  I, too, am skeptical. I theorize that the massive data collection is for control purposes. But watch out - the first people to come under surveillance are those who object to surveillance. More seriously, if you google "jane harmon alberto gonzalez" you'll find a nice, complicated scandal from GW Bush years that never got the play it should have. Sure, Representative Harmon seems to have done some things wrong, but the real issue is "...Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez later quashed a DOJ investigation into this incident in order to secure Harman’s support for the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program." That's right, the Attorney General of the US might have (probably did) blackmail a US Representative, using surveillance data. We're all accustomed to autocratic executive branches now, but that's a bridge too far, if you ask me.
  - bellerose 7y ago
    I have no objection to surveillance if people are open about it and the information is accessible if reasonably needed. I honestly would rather live in a world that had cameras everywhere, including the rooms of my apartment and making victims actually have an opportunity to receive justice instead of the reality we live in today. Of course what I'm writing will be attacked because such a system is hard to design but it's not impossible and if it was made it could make it so the abused no longer be abused. Anyway I'm now in Canada because United States is only where the financially privileged get justice & healthcare.
  - tomjakubowski 7y ago
    When I googled "jane harmon alberto gonzalez" I found a lot of blog spam linking to Jeff Stein's original reporting on that, but Stein's article 404ed. Here it is, for the interested: http://web.archive.org/web/20090421090444/http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html?docID=hsnews-000003098436 http://web.archive.org/web/20090421090444/http://static.cqpo...
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Yes, according to the NSA. Not surprisingly they're usually pretty coy about the details, which makes it hard to independently verify some of their claims. for example: NSA, over a two-year period, used Section 702 to develop a robust body of knowledge about the personal network of an individual providing support to a leading terrorist in Iraq and Syria. This "leading terrorist" practiced strict operational security, and thus it was necessary to study the target by identifying key operatives throughout his network to understand not only the plans and intentions of the terrorist leader, but also to attempt to track his movements. Section 702 collection provided the necessary information for tactical teams to conduct a successful military operation, removing the terrorist from the battlefield. This information was critical to the discovery and disruption of this threat to the U.S. and its allies.
- mLuby 7y ago
  >an individual providing support to a leading terrorist in Iraq and Syria That's a pretty weak outcome for such egregious privacy violations. If they'd "stopped 17 plots to kill 100 or more Americans" then maybe I'd concede that the program is effective (though still immoral IMO).
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Allegedly, the FBI just thwarted a planned bombing in LA by an Army veteran. [1] Obviously all the operation details of how they found this guy are not disclosed, but there does appear to be undercover agents involved. There have been cases in the past where the FBI undercover agent has been a little too instrumental in developing the plan for the alleged attack, but it doesn’t appear that is the case in this instance. I would not be surprised if some sort of mass surveillance was instrumental in identifying / risk scoring this guy’s posting and flagging him for closer investigation. Not at all a supporter of these programs in general, but I wanted to try to answer your question. [1] - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/california-terror-plot-new-zealand-christchurch-attack https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/calif...
    - 7y ago
moftz 7y ago
It's likely that the massive surveillance infrastructure isn't for looking for certain words but to link individuals together and build graphs to explore relationships. During a wiretapped call that investigators are listening in on, a name in dropped. That name could then be run through the NSA's databases to produce not just how the target knows the new person but who that new person knows. There could be an entire terror cell operating totally unknown but unless something links one of the members to terrorism, all of those guys could just be a bowling club for all anyone knows.
Fnoord 7y ago
The more secret an agency is, the less likely you'll hear about the great achievements they've done for your country on the short term. On the long term, it might end up declassified. That's the conundrum of secret services. The public cannot possibly assess their performance. As for the needle in a haystack point. Bill Binney architected a system which was targeted. The NSA rejected it...
- mLuby 7y ago
  >The public cannot possibly assess their performance. Respectfully, that's not true. Secret programs can still be judged on their inputs and outputs: eg "we spent $50B and averted 17 attacks, saving potentially 15,000 lives and $500B in economic damage." What possible information can that give an adversary?
  - irishcoffee 7y ago
    I consider it more like the defense of American football. A good defense is good. They could not allow the opposing offense to score any points all game. What should the defense claim? "We prevented 21 points from being scored!" No. They have no idea how many points they prevented. NSA is a thankless organization. You don't know all the things they've done well, and they get blamed whenever anything bad happens.
    - jackpirate 7y ago
      It's pretty straightforward to quantify how good a football defensive team is. > We had 5 sacks, 3 interceptions, and limited the opposing offense to 200yards gained. Is obviously better than > We had 0 sacks, 0 interceptions, and the opposing offense took 400 yards. Even if in both games the opposing offense scored the same number of points.
      - irishcoffee 7y ago
        I agree, it's not a perfect analogy. I think the point stands.
identity-haver 7y ago
They probably don't want to publicize their methods, and they might not have to due to parallel construction -- we may never know what they've stopped. There's not a lot of oversight here: they're also spying on Congress and civil servants and every time a terrorist attack or mass shooting happens, they get more money and more power whether they've stopped any other attacks or not. In the unlikely event that someone told them to stop because the 4th amendment was violated, they would just have someone in an intelligence-sharing agreement like Five Eyes get the same data and send it over.
mindslight 7y ago
This isn't the right question to ask, as it presumes that efficacy would be a justification. Totalitarianism is never okay, regardless of its effect on crime.
- java-man 7y ago
  people who benefit financially or politically might disagree.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    Yes, obviously someone financially or politically benefiting from totalitarianism would disagree, as they want it to continue to the detriment of everyone else. Which is why it's important to not give them any possible ammunition like "hey it did actually stop this one rando, so it's really for your own good".
lern_too_spel 7y ago
> This is still a clear violation of the 4th amendment imho. How? The Fourth Amendment says nothing about collecting the communications of specific non-Americans living outside the US that are believed to have foreign intelligence value (Section 702 collection). Searching that data with queries for specific US people under investigation is at worst a gray area.

zigzaggy 7y ago

Warrantless searches will continue to rise, as will the other forms of surveillance, data collection, etc. as long as we let it happen. As long as most people don't really understand the technology, and it's implications, the government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then lose the data in breaches. Not many people I know would trust the government enough to let them do what they're doing if they truly understood. I think by the time we - as a society - realize all of the the implications, it will be much too late. In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive collection of intimate data.

50656E6973 7y ago
>As long as most people don't really understand the technology, and it's implications, the government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then lose the data in breaches. Why are you only concerned about the government accruing mass troves of data, then losing them in breaches? >In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive collection of intimate data. While I'm inclined to agree, there are many people who happily give up the most intimate details of their lives for extremely small conveniences.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  I think it's biological. Herding creatures have to have the majority of the population be highly maleable to the influence of the pack leader(s). This means that with the majority of the population, reason, thinking and ideas just don't penetrate well. It's all about going along and getting along. Ideas can only be considered if group think is rejected.
  - themacguffinman 7y ago
    How ridiculously patronizing. Could it be that privacy arguments flogged to death on HN don't connect to the reality of the majority of people? Or that the arguments are not being expressed in an relatable or understandable way? Or that they share different values than you? No, it's the children who are wrong. I'm sure it's just group-think that blinds them to your brilliant ideas.

wybiral 7y ago

The weird part to me is that the US Intelligence Community is using Tumblr for communicating these reports to the public.

java-man 7y ago
... for the reasons of national security, of course.
oil25 7y ago
It seems to be part of a larger PR effort to appear socially acceptable and relatable in a post-Snowden world.
throwaway66666 7y ago
Now imagine being an angsty teenager looking for harry potter erotic fanfic and stumbling onto the NSA's director tumblr. They 're onto us, you 'll think in a flash of paranoia. As if a swat team is in your house.

thatoneuser 7y ago

Did anyone expect it to do anything but rise? They have power and they want more. Pick up that can citizen.

craftinator 7y ago

I'd vote for the NSA to be disbanded, all personnel fired, all equipment destroyed. Would anyone else vote for that?

thrwaway190430 7y ago
regarding the stuff they already have: doesn't whatever they have have huge historical value? it could be the difference between being a lost civilization and being well-preserved. I'm not saying it should continue but if I could vote between destroying it or putting it on mars in a time capsule to be opened in 1,000 years I'd probably choose the latter. (not saying collection should continue.) humanity has zero qualms about reading historical letters among famous people but these days it's all digital so we would be a lost civilization otherwise. I don't know if it has access to this stuff but if it does wouldn't it be better to put it somewhere for the future? Though the way we have no qualms about opening Pharaohs' tombs in Egypt presumably we can't count on our direct descendents not opening it early either. I don't know how anyone can make a legit time capsule. what do you think? better to destroy all that data?
- somebodythere 7y ago
  If a government agency openly announced, today, that they would be indiscriminately collecting phone and internet data from Americans for the express purpose of putting it in a time capsule to be opened in 1,000 years, would you be pleased? (FWIW, I would not.)
  - thrwaway190430 7y ago
    No. (And I think it should stop, if it's happening.) If a trove of private correspondence is found from an ancient civilization, that was clearly not meant for disseminatuon but intercepted unlawfully, do you think we should destroy it? I think it's okay to answer this question in the negative. But an argument could be made that people should have a right to privacy unbroken even by long posterity. What do you think of that question?

sfsfsf6666 7y ago

If the NSA were a noble creature, we could rest easy. There is no nobility in our governments though. No grace. They'll often trade data, up and down, with local governments, and the local governments can benefit from that federal warrantless data. When the state of Arizona sweeps up all the non-licensed manicurists in Phoenix, and you're wondering "How the hell did Sheriff Billy Bob know about all these people..." When you hear that really bad people will only be the targets of 4th amendment violations, don't be naive. Don't believe a word of it. And don't forget that government finds low hanging fruit absolutely delicious. "Look at what we got done." -says some random bureaucrat. While collecting some of the fattest pensions this side of the industrial revolution.

mkdirdaniel 7y ago
Truth, eloquently said.
deytempo 7y ago
You had me at “fattest pensions this side of the industrial revolution” lol
shawndumas 7y ago
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.”
SantalBlush 7y ago
It's all about establishing trust. These faceless entities will never make a public display of their egregious misuse of private information, so citizens will continue to hand over information that they wouldn't dream of personally giving to a stranger.

mkdirdaniel 7y ago

Regarding data collection, it's hard to make people care. It's like smoking or (some) drugs; as long as the effect is gradual and not immediate, people won't care. It takes someone who values freedom and privacy, and/or tech savvy folks that understand the implications of data collection, to actually care. It's unfortunate, but most are not even willing to take 15 minutes and re-configure the settings on their phone to increase privacy. For more people to care, I think it'll have to affect them directly, in a negative and embarrassing way.

parliament32 7y ago

I thought the source link was a joke at first... why is US Intelligence publishing releases on Tumblr, of all places? >Additional public information on national security authorities is available at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s website, www.dni.gov, the Intelligence Community’s public website, www.intel.gov, and ODNI’s public Tumblr site, IC on the Record at IContheRecord.tumblr.com.

OrgNet 7y ago

Are they proud of it? What is going on? They used to lie about this stuff. Maybe they are trying to pin this law on Trump? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/way-nsa-uses-section-702-deeply-troubling-heres-why https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/way-nsa-uses-section-7...