4 ms·

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 tr

by 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.
brown9-2 13y ago
Isn't this second-to-last paragraph the nut of the issue though? It describes how things work under the FAA: Section 702 of the FAA says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed. If what they are doing is according to Section 702, then isn't the outrage what the law allows rather than what the NSA is doing according to it?
- rayiner 13y ago
  You have to read the FISA system in context. Surveillance under the Act is only authorized in cases where the 4th amendment doesn't apply and where no warrant would otherwise be required. Under those circumstances, it's not particularly outrageous to allow the AG or DNI to proceed without a FISA warrant under certain circumstances.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    In fairness that's not very reassuring for the idea that an NSA analyst may decide to look at a U.S. citizen's traffic and then "whoops, let's minimize that". I guess what I'm wondering is what are the supervisory controls that are put in place to catch and discipline an analyst who looks into warrant-required intercepts where it isn't a bona-fide innocent error? I.e. if you know the person is a citizen you shouldn't look at all (without getting a warrant), and if you don't know but find out in the middle of reading the data then you should stop and minimize immediately. I can't so much as release a military member's pay transaction without having it looked at by a supervisor and eventually audited (likely by 2-3 different groups when it's all said and done). Are there similar supervisory controls in place here? Those would be good questions to ask to ensure that any such usage of the FISA is kept in line with the already quite-expansive spirit of the law.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      All very fair points. I'm not sure if it's even possible to get the kind of necessary supervision. I'm just pointing out that the law isn't facially ridiculous, even if it might create structures that are practically unworkable.

by declan 13y ago

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.

brown9-2 13y ago

Isn't this second-to-last paragraph the nut of the issue though? It describes how things work under the FAA: Section 702 of the FAA says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed. If what they are doing is according to Section 702, then isn't the outrage what the law allows rather than what the NSA is doing according to it?

rayiner 13y ago
You have to read the FISA system in context. Surveillance under the Act is only authorized in cases where the 4th amendment doesn't apply and where no warrant would otherwise be required. Under those circumstances, it's not particularly outrageous to allow the AG or DNI to proceed without a FISA warrant under certain circumstances.
- mpyne 13y ago
  In fairness that's not very reassuring for the idea that an NSA analyst may decide to look at a U.S. citizen's traffic and then "whoops, let's minimize that". I guess what I'm wondering is what are the supervisory controls that are put in place to catch and discipline an analyst who looks into warrant-required intercepts where it isn't a bona-fide innocent error? I.e. if you know the person is a citizen you shouldn't look at all (without getting a warrant), and if you don't know but find out in the middle of reading the data then you should stop and minimize immediately. I can't so much as release a military member's pay transaction without having it looked at by a supervisor and eventually audited (likely by 2-3 different groups when it's all said and done). Are there similar supervisory controls in place here? Those would be good questions to ask to ensure that any such usage of the FISA is kept in line with the already quite-expansive spirit of the law.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    All very fair points. I'm not sure if it's even possible to get the kind of necessary supervision. I'm just pointing out that the law isn't facially ridiculous, even if it might create structures that are practically unworkable.