3 ms·

Julian Sanchez has some thoughts on this at [1]: Legally speaking, the analysts don’t have carte blanche. In other words, this isn’t “warrantless wiretapping”

by jdp23 13y ago

Julian Sanchez has some thoughts on this at [1]: Legally speaking, the analysts don’t have carte blanche. In other words, this isn’t “warrantless wiretapping” so much as “general warrant wiretapping.” They can’t just tap any old call or read any old e-mail they strikes them as “suspicious.” They’ve got to be flagging content for interception because they believe it’s covered by a particular §702 authorization, and observe whatever “targeting procedures” the FISA Court has established for the relevant authorization.... None of that would be too surprising in principle: That’s the whole point of §702! It means analysts get discretion to decide what particular accounts fall under a very broad order. A key question, of course, is just what the checks in the process are. Can an analyst technically (if not legally) plug in any selector to start collecting on and just start getting material? Does anyone check their work before call and e-mail content starts flowing in? How closely are their error rates checked after it does? Again, legally, they don’t have a blank check, but it’s the details of the system architecture that determine whether you’d be able to tell the difference in practice. [1] http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-on-analysts-getting-call-and-e-mail-content/ http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-o...

tptacek 13y ago
Julian Sanchez has been doing great work covering this stuff. I think the evidence strongly suggests the answer to his question about analysts "[plugging] in any selector and start collecting on and just strt getting material" is no: * Google and Yahoo have categorically denied that it's so * The Guardian has released a follow-up story recategorizing the NSA's access * The full court order linked by the NYT in the Yahoo FISA case shows the court having to demand Yahoo turn over material, which wouldn't have been necessary if NSA had direct access
- discostrings 13y ago
  Jump to conclusions much? Perhaps they can't pull user data at will from Google and Yahoo without a bit of legal process and human intervention at the company. I imagine we'll find out soon. But that only applies to Prism. It looks like email they catch on the wire, which is probably their main source of email, as well as phone calls, may well be fair game for the "plug in any selector...".
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I'm not sure what conclusion your comment suggests I've jumped to.
    - discostrings 13y ago
      You've jumped to the conclusion that if user profiles that haven't yet been delivered through Prism can't be reached with "plug in any selector..." that "plug in any selector..." has been debunked. However, it appears that in the telephone and over-the-wire email interception programs, "plug in any selector" is quite possible.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I'm only interested in and commenting on email and Google/Facebook's supposed (but false) entanglement with NSA. I'm right there with you on the over-the-wire stuff.
        discostrings 13y ago
        I realize you're interested in defending these companies' involvement. That's fine when it's on topic. However, you've just replied to an article and comments that focus on the content that's being intercepted outside of Prism. You don't even mention in your comment that what you're saying applies only to Prism. I know you're sensitive to the Google-bashing, but that's not going on here. It's important we discuss the other aspects of this story and not get too caught up on Prism until we have all the details.
        tptacek 13y ago
        If you reread the Julian Sanchez quote above, you'll see I'm responding to it. (You're right that the Sanchez piece this is taken from concerns itself primarily with telephonic surveillance; I take your point. Thanks.)
brown9-2 13y ago
So in other words, the CNet article that has been on the front page for 17 hours with over 650+ points is likely based on an incorrect interpretation of this exchange. Somehow I doubt a clarification is going to get as much attention on here. From http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-claims-he-was-told-government-could-listen http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-cl... : Update Rep. Nadler in a statement to BuzzFeed says: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”

by jdp23 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Julian Sanchez has been doing great work covering this stuff. I think the evidence strongly suggests the answer to his question about analysts "[plugging] in any selector and start collecting on and just strt getting material" is no: * Google and Yahoo have categorically denied that it's so * The Guardian has released a follow-up story recategorizing the NSA's access * The full court order linked by the NYT in the Yahoo FISA case shows the court having to demand Yahoo turn over material, which wouldn't have been necessary if NSA had direct access

discostrings 13y ago
Jump to conclusions much? Perhaps they can't pull user data at will from Google and Yahoo without a bit of legal process and human intervention at the company. I imagine we'll find out soon. But that only applies to Prism. It looks like email they catch on the wire, which is probably their main source of email, as well as phone calls, may well be fair game for the "plug in any selector...".
- tptacek 13y ago
  I'm not sure what conclusion your comment suggests I've jumped to.
  - discostrings 13y ago
    You've jumped to the conclusion that if user profiles that haven't yet been delivered through Prism can't be reached with "plug in any selector..." that "plug in any selector..." has been debunked. However, it appears that in the telephone and over-the-wire email interception programs, "plug in any selector" is quite possible.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm only interested in and commenting on email and Google/Facebook's supposed (but false) entanglement with NSA. I'm right there with you on the over-the-wire stuff.
      - discostrings 13y ago
        I realize you're interested in defending these companies' involvement. That's fine when it's on topic. However, you've just replied to an article and comments that focus on the content that's being intercepted outside of Prism. You don't even mention in your comment that what you're saying applies only to Prism. I know you're sensitive to the Google-bashing, but that's not going on here. It's important we discuss the other aspects of this story and not get too caught up on Prism until we have all the details.
        tptacek 13y ago
        If you reread the Julian Sanchez quote above, you'll see I'm responding to it. (You're right that the Sanchez piece this is taken from concerns itself primarily with telephonic surveillance; I take your point. Thanks.)

brown9-2 13y ago

So in other words, the CNet article that has been on the front page for 17 hours with over 650+ points is likely based on an incorrect interpretation of this exchange. Somehow I doubt a clarification is going to get as much attention on here. From http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-claims-he-was-told-government-could-listen http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-cl... : Update Rep. Nadler in a statement to BuzzFeed says: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”