3 ms·

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/510020p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... I provided their cha

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/510020p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... I provided their charter. It seems like many people want to falsely over simplify the NSA mission into something different than what the document states. In summary: * NSA derives authority as a component agency under the DOD, a defense agency * The primary mission is to collect signals intelligence and conduct information assurance * perform as executive agency of operational security over inter-agency communications * liaison with foreign governments to conduct sharing of classified materials for signals intelligence There isn’t anything in the charter that specifically separates the NSA responsibilities or areas of operation from such of the FBI. The largest difference is that FBI is a law enforcement agency, as derived from the Department of Justice while the NSA is not. That means the NSA does not have fourth amendment interests which limits information sharing to the FBI. The Wikipedia page on the NSA documents a few scandals in this regard.

parsimo2010 6y ago
This is because the things people are worried about is found in Executive Order 12333. From section 2.3 of the EO, “ Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order ... Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI” The tl;dr is that agencies in the intelligence communities must take full consideration of Americans’ rights when collecting information, and historically have not found suitable procedures to operate internally that satisfy the lawyers. That is how we ended up with FISA because we determined that the only way to protect Americans from the IC trampling on their rights (but still enable internal collection when necessary) was to have a judge examine every request to collect intelligence on US soil. The counter argument to this article is that the NSA doesn’t need specific permission from Congress to collect within the borders of the US- they just have to come up with a way to do it that their general counsel and the Attorney General agree protects the rights of Americans. I know FISA has shortfalls, but we shouldn’t get rid of it and enable mass surveillance of Americans by the NSA just because election security is a hot topic. The erosion of rights is nearly irreversible. There are other options that don’t worry me, such as asking the NSA to assist in securing our election process and critical infrastructure, to decrease the size of the blind spot they have and enable the FBI to do the internal monitoring as intended. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.1 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...
- austincheney 6y ago
  From reading comments by the current NSA commander during his meeting with congress election security is not a top priority. I don’t believe he even raised the subject. He did comment on the SolarWinds and MS Exchange comprises as top concerns. From those points I suspect the concerns are foreign government intrusion into US information systems and data exfiltration generally speaking.
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    securing infrastructure for s/elections/whatever/ My thesis is that the existing rules and authorities aren't the problem, and Congress doesn't need let the NSA have any more authorities. Especially so because the NSA director didn't even ask. They can/should work within their existing orders to secure the nation's critical systems, to reduce the vulnerabilities to a level that the FBI can handle them. Congress pushing to enable government overreach is not the solution.
jl2718 6y ago
Charter is irrelevant. The Posse Comitatus Act is the binding doctrine. We used to take this extremely seriously. The gulf between what technical measures are legal in domestic vs foreign interventions is enormous. The reason is simple. No American is ever supposed to be ‘the enemy’.
- throwaway210222 6y ago
  > The Posse Comitatus Act … is binding … we used to take this extremely seriously. Huh? The Ohio National Guard was putting bullets into 13 unarmed students as long ago as 1970. That ship has sailed.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard.
    - throwaway210222 6y ago
      Clearly.
- austincheney 6y ago
  Posse Comitatus only limits certain limited portions of the military from enforcing domestic policies, such as law enforcement. It does not limit SIGINT collection or other prescribed governmental functions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act This comment, like the GP comment, serves to illustrate many people hold strong opinions on subjects where those opinions do not align with any evidence.
  - jl2718 6y ago
    There was a poster in every SCIF in Afghanistan about this. It at least has to be cleared by civil authorities. Anybody with a US visa, residency, or citizenship. I’m not an expert, but these were the rules we followed. I don’t know what you’re talking about with ‘evidence’. These are rules of man, not of god or nature.

parsimo2010 6y ago

This is because the things people are worried about is found in Executive Order 12333. From section 2.3 of the EO, “ Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order ... Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI” The tl;dr is that agencies in the intelligence communities must take full consideration of Americans’ rights when collecting information, and historically have not found suitable procedures to operate internally that satisfy the lawyers. That is how we ended up with FISA because we determined that the only way to protect Americans from the IC trampling on their rights (but still enable internal collection when necessary) was to have a judge examine every request to collect intelligence on US soil. The counter argument to this article is that the NSA doesn’t need specific permission from Congress to collect within the borders of the US- they just have to come up with a way to do it that their general counsel and the Attorney General agree protects the rights of Americans. I know FISA has shortfalls, but we shouldn’t get rid of it and enable mass surveillance of Americans by the NSA just because election security is a hot topic. The erosion of rights is nearly irreversible. There are other options that don’t worry me, such as asking the NSA to assist in securing our election process and critical infrastructure, to decrease the size of the blind spot they have and enable the FBI to do the internal monitoring as intended. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.1 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...

austincheney 6y ago
From reading comments by the current NSA commander during his meeting with congress election security is not a top priority. I don’t believe he even raised the subject. He did comment on the SolarWinds and MS Exchange comprises as top concerns. From those points I suspect the concerns are foreign government intrusion into US information systems and data exfiltration generally speaking.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  securing infrastructure for s/elections/whatever/ My thesis is that the existing rules and authorities aren't the problem, and Congress doesn't need let the NSA have any more authorities. Especially so because the NSA director didn't even ask. They can/should work within their existing orders to secure the nation's critical systems, to reduce the vulnerabilities to a level that the FBI can handle them. Congress pushing to enable government overreach is not the solution.

jl2718 6y ago

Charter is irrelevant. The Posse Comitatus Act is the binding doctrine. We used to take this extremely seriously. The gulf between what technical measures are legal in domestic vs foreign interventions is enormous. The reason is simple. No American is ever supposed to be ‘the enemy’.

throwaway210222 6y ago
> The Posse Comitatus Act … is binding … we used to take this extremely seriously. Huh? The Ohio National Guard was putting bullets into 13 unarmed students as long ago as 1970. That ship has sailed.
- austincheney 6y ago
  Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard.
  - throwaway210222 6y ago
    Clearly.
austincheney 6y ago
Posse Comitatus only limits certain limited portions of the military from enforcing domestic policies, such as law enforcement. It does not limit SIGINT collection or other prescribed governmental functions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act This comment, like the GP comment, serves to illustrate many people hold strong opinions on subjects where those opinions do not align with any evidence.
- jl2718 6y ago
  There was a poster in every SCIF in Afghanistan about this. It at least has to be cleared by civil authorities. Anybody with a US visa, residency, or citizenship. I’m not an expert, but these were the rules we followed. I don’t know what you’re talking about with ‘evidence’. These are rules of man, not of god or nature.