8 ms·
Live: Head of NSA meets with House Intelligence Committee
- famousactress 13y agoI had to jump around, but this link is where I'm watching live: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/ http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/
- cryptoz 13y agoDeputy Attorney General: "We don't get any content...under this program." The use of language across all parties here is really incredible. The Google/Apple/etc denials so carefully worded, the lawyer-speak that avoid saying anything at all for hours at a time in the US gov't...it's amazingly Orwellian. Edit: Did he just say that the fourth amendment does not apply because nobody expected privacy in the first place? I can't possibly have heard that right.
- famousactress 13y agounder this program. [edit] and here it is... "Under 702, we do get content" [edit] I'm sure at this point the endgame here is gonna be a crazy dance around the word 'collect'. It's increasingly obvious that the secret definition they're using for 'collect' is "an analyst pulls it from our database, where we've already collected some broad swaths of communication by any reasonable person's definition of the term" [edit] One interesting note is that there have been strong denials that the metadata contain any location/cell-tower data. Still wonder if there's another shell game there and it's available via some other source.
- LoganCale 13y agoExactly. It's already been leaked that content is collected under a different program.
- motters 13y agoThey may not get any content, but do they store any content? It could be that "get content" has a very narrow legal interpretation ("taking the book off the shelf and reading it").
- nathas 13y agoHe just mentioned under 702 they DO get content, but it "can only be used against non-US citizens and on non-US soil"... So.. how do you confirm that if all you have is metadata?
- waterlesscloud 13y agoFrom the reports, it seems like they have some kind of bayesian system based on metadata which has to output non-us-citizen at more than 0.51 probability. Which doesn't really make me feel better.
- Torgo 13y agoI hate this heat-map shit. I run an Tor exit node and a public wifi access point in my neighborhood. I encrypt all my drives. I use PGP. I have four cell phones because I do cellphone development. I bitcoin mine, and made a pile of money in the bubble, which I transferred in multiple thousand-dollar increments from a foreign bank to mine, to stay under my mtgox daily limit. I donated to Ron Paul once. I closed my Facebook account. I haven't done anything wrong or illegal, but there is no way I'm not a big red flag on their map.
- centralism 13y agoHe said that the fourth amendment does not apply to the collection of metadata of phone calls, etc, because we already freely expose that information to phone providers, etc.
- dale386 13y agoIt's a big jump from "your phone company sees your call logs" to "you don't mind if anyone sees your call logs."
- LoganCale 13y agoIt's the same argument they use to say email has no constitutional protections. Because you send it across servers outside of your control, clearly you have no desire to keep it private.
- rtpg 13y agothere was a supreme court ruling to that effect 35 years ago (can't recall the name right now). Basically they think there's no expectation to privacy because the phone company knows who you call.
- darkarmani 13y agoSo we need tor for phone calls?
- rtpg 13y ago4th ammendment doesn't apply to this metadata(call duration and number ONLY, no position) per a Supreme Court ruling 35 years ago about phone records. This hearing , if you listen to all of it, went into surprising amount of detail concerning how these programs function. Just because they have to use big words (because this is about the law) doesn't mean they're trying to hide anything. This has been pretty illuminating. Still some issues with the problem (notably "probable suspicion" clause concerning querying the database, there isn't enough oversight apart from in NSA).
- lettergram 13y agohmmm the argument that it is not reasonable that what I view on the internet is private is disturbing. I do have a reasonable expectation of it being private. This is referring to the Attorney Generals statement that we do not have a reasonable expectation for our meta data not to be public.
- nathas 13y ago"Because you share that information with phone companies, etc". He referenced a court decision about that. Can someone who knows what the case might be find it?
- lettergram 13y agoThat was related to a phone company, not for the internet. The internet providers give me a reasonable expectation of privacy. The point is, this hasn't been tested via the justice system because it was hidden. Therefore the simple explanation that it was a court decision previously (to something similar, but not explicit) is not very comforting.
- LoganCale 13y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
- ck2 13y agoHe's going to announce two terror plots stopped by this. Should be interesting.
- nodata 13y agoBet he won't say whether those plots could have been stopped another way.
- motters 13y agoAs a person "outside the united states and not a US person" this doesn't fill be with confidence about using US based internet services. It also doesn't give me much confidence about communicating with "US persons".
- famousactress 13y agoSpeaking as a US Person... Honestly, thank God for this. Hopefully lots of non-US-persons vote with their dollars and feet on this issue. I think the financial impact has better odds at moving the needle on US public opinion than flogging our representatives with regard to civil liberties or privacy.
- adventured 13y agoI have a visceral negative reaction to what they're doing to my country, and it makes me want to say: please embargo us, foreign nations and citizens. It won't happen unfortunately.
- alan_cx 13y agoIndeed. You only have to see the massive trade deal the EU and US are putting through to see how much Europe cares. Could have been some gentle leverage there, but no.
- wtvanhest 13y agoYes, now you know for a fact that using a US internet communications company will result in your data being stored or at least examined by the US government. Unfortunately there is no evidence that other countries will not apply the same tactics to whichever internet communications companies exist on their soil.
- mtgx 13y agoIs it me or are most (all?) of these hearings against companies or agencies in this case - a joke? I've watched some of them lately, and the Congressmen always seem to be butt-kissing the company or agency they are supposed to investigate. These past 2 hearings don't seem to intend to shed any light on this. They seem to be held to help protect whatever NSA is doing.
- trebor 13y agoJust think of the kind of blackmail material the NSA would have on our representatives under this program. All it would take is "probable cause", which seems very easy to get, to unearth that data and start blackmail or expose the person. These programs give the NSA an incredible amount of power, and it's easily misused.
- skue 13y agoAnd THIS is the ultimate answer to the question: If I have nothing to hide, why should this bother me? It's not whether each of us individually have something to hide: it's whether our politicians, our activists, our reporters, our lawyers, our doctors, our military, our police, our courts, our spies, our business leaders, our celebrities, our friends & family have something to hide. Because if any of them can be manipulated by the data that is being gathered, then all of us lose.
- VMG 13y agoI can see an interesting collective action problem here. In principle, members of congress do not have an interest to be monitored and spied on. However raising protest as an individual member can cause you problems, because the NSA can pressure you. But if they act collectively, they might have a chance.
- axelf 13y agoYep, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#AIPAC_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#AIPAC_controversy
- 13y ago
- marknutter 13y agoArguing that these programs are effective by revealing a few foiled terrorist plots is entirely beside the point. Obviously monitoring every communication on the planet would help the government track down a few terrorist plots here and there. If they really want the debate to focus on the effectiveness of these programs then they should explain why they failed so spectacularly to prevent the Boston Marathon bombings, a plot carried out by two of the most careless and naive terrorists to date. Heck, even a direct warning from Russian officials fell on deaf ears. Perhaps the NSA was too busy listening to innocent people's phone calls to respond? The effectiveness isn't what's at issue here, though. The problem is the loss of privacy for innocent civilians, to which Obama and other government officials respond to with wishy-washy arguments about "tradeoffs" between security and privacy.
- vermontdevil 13y agoI would also add to the argument that the following things are also happening and will happen: 1) More money being wasted to support certain corporations (Booz etc) in return for future plum jobs by these representatives/senators or heads of these agencies. Thus the cycle continues in favor of supporting these programs rather than analyzing whether we really need it or not. 2) Abuses by contractors or employees when they have this much access and power in seeing all the private data 3) Corruption of these committees due to the feeling of being "in" where others are not. In other words, it's going to get worse.
- Loughla 13y agoDo you have any citations for any of these items? Or is it just time for wild speculation? I am pretty good at that: And they'll listen to who is pregnant in the future, and force us to all get implants for the babies, thereby making a super race of Americans to rule the world! lightning flash MWAHAHAHA. Please cite any proof you have.
- GVIrish 13y agoLook up Thomas Drake, he was an NSA leaker who exposed a very high level of waste with the Trailblazer program as well as an incestuous relationship between contractors and those who awarded the contracts.
- jdp23 13y agoGet FISA Right has a Twitter list with live tweets from several accounts following the hearing -- EFFLive, Julian Sanchez, Marcy Wheeler, Michelle Richardson of the ACLU, etc. https://twitter.com/GetFISARight/nsa https://twitter.com/GetFISARight/nsa
- choult 13y agoI would personally like to know if there's a blacklist for any such program which prevents electronic systems from surveilling anyone on it. I can imagine that a senator knowing their details have been/can be accessed without due cause would be a real PITA for the NSA.
- ck2 13y agoThe clowns questioning him keep saying "UNDER THIS PROGRAM". Yeah well the ones we know. Now we need to know the others.
- wheelerwj 13y agoyeah exactly. One doesn't allow content to be captured, the other does, but only for non-american citizens, except when it is an accident... so when you combine all three incidences... yes they have full access and admit it several times.
- MisterWebz 13y ago"Does the NSA listen to the content of phone calls?" General Alexander: "No we do not have that authority." I think it's pretty clear by now that they're collecting phone call content. Here's another and I'm paraphrasing: "Is there something else being collected?" "Besides the 215(?) and 702(?)? I'm not sure as I don't know whether that info has been declassified."
- benburleson 13y agoWhat a political circle-jerk. The questioning plays out like a rehearsed commercial.
- tghw 13y ago"But if we do acquire any information that relates to a US person, under limited criteria only, can we keep it. If it has to do with foreign intelligence in that conversation or understanding foreign intelligence, or evidence of a crime or a threat of serious bodily injury, we can respond to that. Other than that, we have to get rid of it, we have to purge it, and we can't use it." (emphasis mine) This seems very close to an admission that they both have and analyze the data before purging it. Combined with the idea that most people commit three felonies a day and pretty quickly all of these assertions about not spying on US citizens or people in the US goes out the window.
- waterlesscloud 13y agoHere's the thing- if they get and store this data, in any way whatsoever, it's going to come out. With a 100% certainty, that fact will out in time. And when it does, any word games they try to play now will just be devastating to them then. Absolutely devastating. It will not protect them, it will not help them, it will damn them. So, given that it will come out and it will hurt them when it does...why play the games? Either they aren't storing the data (which seems possible still, though less likely than I thought 2 weeks ago), or they're operating with the future planning capability of a fruit fly. I don't know which it is,but this doesn't feel like it's going to end well for anyone.
- lettergram 13y agoSomeone did try to say that they keep data... In the original release by Snowden.
- narag 13y agoThat's why a gradual release of revelations is such a good strategy. We've been seeing this in Spain in corruption cases. The target doesn't know what to expect: has the leaker had access to the real stuff or did he just scratched the surface? The danger of a too dismisive response is being caught in outright lies. With time, more people appears involved and the matter stays in the news.
- pezh0re 13y agoSuggesting that there are several plots that have been thwarted - and that somehow justifies the program seems too "ends justify the means". (probably because that's exactly what they're arguing)
- pezh0re 13y ago"The documents that have been released so far ironically show the oversight" ... I like what John Oliver said on the Daily Show - “We’re not saying anyone broke any laws, we’re just saying it’s a little bit weird that you didn’t have to.”
- ihsw 13y agoHopefully this will shift the conversation from "listening to phone calls" and "collecting internet records (eg: emails, browsing history)" to "storing phone calls" and "storing internet records (eg: emails, browsing history)". At this point it's become abundantly clear that everything is stored and indexed in a database, and the only defense against abuse of this database is only policies. One of the worst cases to come out of this entire ordeal is the legal dance around the definition of "listen" and whether it refers to automatically capturing phone calls or an individual listening to a recording of a phone call after it's been captured.
- pvnick 13y ago>the only defense against abuse of this database is only policies. This point is extremely important and is what Snowden continuously returns to. In yesterday's Q&A he said "policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens." This idea is critical to having an intelligent debate of the issues at hand.
- ihsw 13y agoThis is where I disagree with him, during last Wednesday's CSPAN cyber-security session Senator Leahy made it abundantly clear that he supports sunset provisions that indicates an expiration and discontinuation on such surveillance programs.
- LoganCale 13y agoLeahy does, but do enough other people to make a difference? There are usually a few people in Congress who support moving towards better protections, but in general it does tend to get looser and looser over the years.
- ihsw 13y agoIf there are enough 'other people' (read: other senators voting for it) then the legislation passes and the sunset provisions are added, personally I think that's the most important difference.
- seansoutpost 13y agoIf you are not actually watching, the narrative of this talk is entirely defensive of the work going on by the NSA. They are flat out denying the information leaked my Mr. Snowden. Also, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberg just said the words "True Facts"
- marmot1101 13y agoIf the FISA court was transparent in any way having them issue warrants and provide oversight might be valuable. But it is not, thus that court is meaningless.
- _k 13y agoLet's take any country, other than the US, e.g. Switzerland, Luxembourg, ... why isn't Al-Qaeda flying into the buildings of those countries ?
- wheelerwj 13y agoListening to this is absurd. Any intelligent human being can see that this open meeting is nothing more than a PR piece. So far I have heard three congressmen testify that this is legal and nothing illegal is happening. They are preloading the conversation and giving people the opportunity to tune out before General Alexander can even speak.
- LoganCale 13y ago> Confirmed: NSA Analyst doesn't need a separate court order to query database. Analysts can decide what is "reasonably suspicious." https://twitter.com/efflive/status/347019679073710082 https://twitter.com/efflive/status/347019679073710082
- _k 13y agoIt's PR. They say there's court involvement but it's a rubber stamp and then they access all data they got on you. They do say there has to be reasonable suspicion but we all know how that goes. One guy says people don't have an expectation of privacy because they are used to giving their data to the phone companies. I think I heard enough. And Europe and China, yes, all communications of your citizens are being recorded, and yes it's a privacy violation. I've heard enough.
- dlss 13y agoat 1:02:30 "Does the technology exist at the NSA to record american's phone calls, or read their emails?" "No" There's something weird going on -- this seems too far off from Snowden's reports to be true. Like, p(Snowden leak | no technology like that) is just too small relative to p(Snowden leak)
- codeulike 13y agoThe get-out-clause here is that they avoid "American's" phone calls. However if an American phones a non-American, or sends an email via a non-USA IP address, they'll hoover it up. That is consistent with what Snowden said in the Q+A with the guardian yesterday: US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with.
- hoytie 13y agoA hearing like this reinforces secrecy and benefits only the people in that room. They are given a platform to legitimize their activities and deny the existence of anything that may violate the constitution or upset Americans. "Hey guys, we're here to tell you all about anything except what you actually want to know about" = the game of secrecy vs the public
- davenull 13y agoThat was the largest gathering of nervous looking politicians and military brass I have ever witnessed. I don't think a lot of them were comfortable talking about information that became declassified immediately before they were to discuss them with the public.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoGood grief Mike Rogers is a windbag. His opening statement to the hearing is a pretty good indication to me that he/they intend to investigate nothing, but rather to distract and deceive the public wrt to their activities.