5 ms·

Snowden: NSA snoops on U.S. phone calls without warrants

149 points by declan 13y ago

trebor 13y ago
This was almost admitted to outright by the NSA: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5886686 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5886686
- brown9-2 13y ago
  The sad thing about this intense focus on the NSA story by HN in the past 2 weeks is that the sensational headlines stay on the top of HN for days, but when those headlines are later refuted it is not as widely seen. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305855-house-dem-nsa-cant-listen-to-calls-without-warrants http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305855-hous...
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Of course - it's "Hacker News" after all: you expect retractions not to be buried?'
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Huh, a pithy joke about the tendency of news organizations to bury retractions is somehow my most hated comment ever? Color me confused - I still amuse me.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    If you read this CNET article, you'll see why that statement doesn't actually refuse it.
  - declan 13y ago
    Not "refuted." Nadler says he was reassured by the administration, but has refused to say by whom, or whether the reassurance was legally binding. Here's the transcript, so judge for yourself (remember warrants would only be required for content, not metadata): https://plus.google.com/u/0/112961607570158342254/posts/SBkRcVwPbdT https://plus.google.com/u/0/112961607570158342254/posts/SBkR...
    - eli 13y ago
      Your original claim -- the one in that's still the headline of the linked HN post -- is that the NSA admitted it listens to phone calls without a warrant. I don't want to get into a linguistics debate, but I think this has indeed been refuted. It's certainly unsubstantiated. I mean, that's why you changed the headline of your article on CNet, right? For the rest, I don't see how it's possible to prove the negative: that the NSA isn't doing what you claim in your piece... but if the only evidence they are is second-hand from what Rep. Nadler says he heard in a secret hearing... and now he says he was wrong... Well, seems awfully weak to me.
      - wallio 13y ago
        The story was that they admitted this in a "secret briefing". I'm not sure if denying something in public refutes what you said in private. Nadler seemed pretty sure on Thursday at the Committee meeting and when interviewed by CNET over the weekend but has now changed his story. The NSA released a very strangely worded denial. And in today's Q&A Snowden says this is exactly how it happens. Not sure what to make of all this but is seems like we have been given a peek behind the curtain but not a long enough gaze to see exactly what is going on.
        eli 13y ago
        AFAIK, Rep. Nadler was not interviewed by CNET for the story and it was based entirely on the reporter's interpretation of his public remarks. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I think there's a good chance Rep. Nadler did not change his position and was simply misinterpreted. If you watch the video[0] of the exchange, it definitely seems like at least one of them is confused about what they're talking about. Regardless, I think the implication that somebody must have "gotten to" Congressman Nadler and therefore we should continue to believe what we thought he said earlier rather than what he's saying unambiguously now is totally ridiculous. [0] http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456140 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456140 (it's right near the start).
        brown9-2 13y ago
        No, the story was that Rep. Nadler said something confusing and ambiguous in a public hearing that referred to a secret briefing and that some reporters ran with the statements and assumed the worst. For what it's worth, from what I've seen of Rep. Nadler in the past, he doesn't seem like the kind of craven politician who would either equivocate or be scared into submission.
  - inzax 13y ago
    Do you really believe that after all the political lies we as a country have heard in the past 3 months, any thing a person on the hill says would carry more than 2 cents?
bloaf 13y ago
I wonder what I would have done if I were in Snowden's shoes. I've seen something that is personally troubling, ambiguously legal, and possibly abused by analysts without oversight. That something is ostensibly the recording of phone calls and other electronic communications without warrant. The abuses could simply be employees viewing communications without instructions (e.g. for voyeuristic purposes or personal gain.) If those assumptions are correct, then I can't help but think that I would have taken a few phone calls with me on my way out. A few mp3s featuring Dick Cheney and his family would make quite a point if released now for example.
- jonknee 13y ago
  > If those assumptions are correct, then I can't help but think that I would have taken a few phone calls with me on my way out. A few mp3s featuring Dick Cheney and his family would make quite a point if released now for example. He obviously has more than he has shared (and has shared to the Guardian and Washington Post more than we have been privy to). The fun thing is that the Feds have a high certainty of what he has and can't say or even use it as evidence lest they do the leaking for him.
  - bloaf 13y ago
    Yes, I wonder about that too. Greenwald seems to be very eager to tell us that Snowden has more than has been released. The implication is that the rest of the information is too dangerous to release. Apart from the two immediate questions: "Does that information actually exist?" and "Why is it too dangerous?" We must ask ourselves why Snowden isn't forthcoming with some less sensitive proof to bolster his claims. It presumably would have been possible for him to have foreseen the reluctance news organizations had to publish the information. Why not have something more along the lines of a proof-of-concept to dispel the doubt that comes with incomplete information? Having a recording of some peoples' phone records would be just that kind of proof (provided he couldn't have reasonably gotten their records any other way.)
    - delackner 13y ago
      Revealing such a recording would enable the government to prosecute him for "targeting" such information without a warrant. Of course he has bigger worries than whether they try to tack on such a trumped up charge...
inzax 13y ago
If I were Snowden and if I had that power. I would first release all this information to the public. And then to hear what the 3 letters had to say. And then, release emails for 1 month of each and every Senator and representative. That in it self I believe would have caused the most change. completely theoretical, but would have caused the most change for the better.

149 points by declan 13y ago

This was almost admitted to outright by the NSA: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5886686 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5886686

brown9-2 13y ago
The sad thing about this intense focus on the NSA story by HN in the past 2 weeks is that the sensational headlines stay on the top of HN for days, but when those headlines are later refuted it is not as widely seen. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305855-house-dem-nsa-cant-listen-to-calls-without-warrants http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305855-hous...
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Of course - it's "Hacker News" after all: you expect retractions not to be buried?'
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Huh, a pithy joke about the tendency of news organizations to bury retractions is somehow my most hated comment ever? Color me confused - I still amuse me.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  If you read this CNET article, you'll see why that statement doesn't actually refuse it.
- declan 13y ago
  Not "refuted." Nadler says he was reassured by the administration, but has refused to say by whom, or whether the reassurance was legally binding. Here's the transcript, so judge for yourself (remember warrants would only be required for content, not metadata): https://plus.google.com/u/0/112961607570158342254/posts/SBkRcVwPbdT https://plus.google.com/u/0/112961607570158342254/posts/SBkR...
  - eli 13y ago
    Your original claim -- the one in that's still the headline of the linked HN post -- is that the NSA admitted it listens to phone calls without a warrant. I don't want to get into a linguistics debate, but I think this has indeed been refuted. It's certainly unsubstantiated. I mean, that's why you changed the headline of your article on CNet, right? For the rest, I don't see how it's possible to prove the negative: that the NSA isn't doing what you claim in your piece... but if the only evidence they are is second-hand from what Rep. Nadler says he heard in a secret hearing... and now he says he was wrong... Well, seems awfully weak to me.
    - wallio 13y ago
      The story was that they admitted this in a "secret briefing". I'm not sure if denying something in public refutes what you said in private. Nadler seemed pretty sure on Thursday at the Committee meeting and when interviewed by CNET over the weekend but has now changed his story. The NSA released a very strangely worded denial. And in today's Q&A Snowden says this is exactly how it happens. Not sure what to make of all this but is seems like we have been given a peek behind the curtain but not a long enough gaze to see exactly what is going on.
      - eli 13y ago
        AFAIK, Rep. Nadler was not interviewed by CNET for the story and it was based entirely on the reporter's interpretation of his public remarks. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I think there's a good chance Rep. Nadler did not change his position and was simply misinterpreted. If you watch the video[0] of the exchange, it definitely seems like at least one of them is confused about what they're talking about. Regardless, I think the implication that somebody must have "gotten to" Congressman Nadler and therefore we should continue to believe what we thought he said earlier rather than what he's saying unambiguously now is totally ridiculous. [0] http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456140 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4456140 (it's right near the start).
      - brown9-2 13y ago
        No, the story was that Rep. Nadler said something confusing and ambiguous in a public hearing that referred to a secret briefing and that some reporters ran with the statements and assumed the worst. For what it's worth, from what I've seen of Rep. Nadler in the past, he doesn't seem like the kind of craven politician who would either equivocate or be scared into submission.
- inzax 13y ago
  Do you really believe that after all the political lies we as a country have heard in the past 3 months, any thing a person on the hill says would carry more than 2 cents?

bloaf 13y ago

I wonder what I would have done if I were in Snowden's shoes. I've seen something that is personally troubling, ambiguously legal, and possibly abused by analysts without oversight. That something is ostensibly the recording of phone calls and other electronic communications without warrant. The abuses could simply be employees viewing communications without instructions (e.g. for voyeuristic purposes or personal gain.) If those assumptions are correct, then I can't help but think that I would have taken a few phone calls with me on my way out. A few mp3s featuring Dick Cheney and his family would make quite a point if released now for example.

jonknee 13y ago
> If those assumptions are correct, then I can't help but think that I would have taken a few phone calls with me on my way out. A few mp3s featuring Dick Cheney and his family would make quite a point if released now for example. He obviously has more than he has shared (and has shared to the Guardian and Washington Post more than we have been privy to). The fun thing is that the Feds have a high certainty of what he has and can't say or even use it as evidence lest they do the leaking for him.
- bloaf 13y ago
  Yes, I wonder about that too. Greenwald seems to be very eager to tell us that Snowden has more than has been released. The implication is that the rest of the information is too dangerous to release. Apart from the two immediate questions: "Does that information actually exist?" and "Why is it too dangerous?" We must ask ourselves why Snowden isn't forthcoming with some less sensitive proof to bolster his claims. It presumably would have been possible for him to have foreseen the reluctance news organizations had to publish the information. Why not have something more along the lines of a proof-of-concept to dispel the doubt that comes with incomplete information? Having a recording of some peoples' phone records would be just that kind of proof (provided he couldn't have reasonably gotten their records any other way.)
  - delackner 13y ago
    Revealing such a recording would enable the government to prosecute him for "targeting" such information without a warrant. Of course he has bigger worries than whether they try to tack on such a trumped up charge...

inzax 13y ago

If I were Snowden and if I had that power. I would first release all this information to the public. And then to hear what the 3 letters had to say. And then, release emails for 1 month of each and every Senator and representative. That in it self I believe would have caused the most change. completely theoretical, but would have caused the most change for the better.