5 ms·

> This training not only covers the mechanics of the tool but also each analyst's ethical and legal obligations. Which means, of course, that analysts can oper

by bdamm 13y ago

> This training not only covers the mechanics of the tool but also each analyst's ethical and legal obligations. Which means, of course, that analysts can operate outside of their ethical and legal obligations. And to me, that is the foundation of the issue. Who pays what analyst in DC to dig up dirt? And to the statement that access is audited... how many analysts were fired for overstepping their ethical obligations? Is that information collected or released?

charonn0 13y ago
An audit is meaningless when conducted by the very organization being audited.
- carey 13y ago
  Who should do this kind of audit? The GAO is part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch, but presumably they wouldn't have enough "clearance".
  - charonn0 13y ago
    That's the problem, and that's why these programs should be terminated. An un-auditable spy agency answerable only to the President is manifestly unconstitutional, dangerous, and wrong.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >An un-auditable spy agency answerable only to the President i somehow think that its answerability to the President is overrated. Presidents come and go, the machine continues humming :)
revelation 13y ago
I think you misread. They stated specifically that every search is fully auditable. In NSA speech, that means that no audits of any sort are ever performed; searches are only auditable, never audited. This works similar to the collection of domestic data, which is siphoned off, stored, replicated and indexed, but never actually accessed by anyone. (Some of the screenshots suggest that the legitimation for every search is entered into a free text field, making any kind of automated analysis extremely difficult. This already suggests that no such statistics are collected.)
rtpg 13y ago
I think the lack of faith in public officers to follow the law can be disconcerting. I don't think everyone will follow all the laws all the time, but if you just assume that laws will be broken consistently, then you enter into a loop of cynicism to where you basically cannot have any form of public structure. Assuming that agencies will at least try to follow the law is rule of law 101. Passing new legislation concerning the audit procedure, for example, could solve a problem you mention.
- teeja 13y ago
  Remember, these are the people who ran off to Ashcroft's hospital bed when the acting AG wouldn't sign off on their spy program.
mpyne 13y ago
> And to the statement that access is audited... how many analysts were fired for overstepping their ethical obligations? Is that information collected or released? I wish it were public. Apparently analysts do get caught and fired for mundane things like looking up ex-wives so apparently someone is checking. But that doesn't mean everything is being audited either.

by bdamm 13y ago

charonn0 13y ago

An audit is meaningless when conducted by the very organization being audited.

carey 13y ago
Who should do this kind of audit? The GAO is part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch, but presumably they wouldn't have enough "clearance".
- charonn0 13y ago
  That's the problem, and that's why these programs should be terminated. An un-auditable spy agency answerable only to the President is manifestly unconstitutional, dangerous, and wrong.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >An un-auditable spy agency answerable only to the President i somehow think that its answerability to the President is overrated. Presidents come and go, the machine continues humming :)

revelation 13y ago

I think you misread. They stated specifically that every search is fully auditable. In NSA speech, that means that no audits of any sort are ever performed; searches are only auditable, never audited. This works similar to the collection of domestic data, which is siphoned off, stored, replicated and indexed, but never actually accessed by anyone. (Some of the screenshots suggest that the legitimation for every search is entered into a free text field, making any kind of automated analysis extremely difficult. This already suggests that no such statistics are collected.)

rtpg 13y ago

I think the lack of faith in public officers to follow the law can be disconcerting. I don't think everyone will follow all the laws all the time, but if you just assume that laws will be broken consistently, then you enter into a loop of cynicism to where you basically cannot have any form of public structure. Assuming that agencies will at least try to follow the law is rule of law 101. Passing new legislation concerning the audit procedure, for example, could solve a problem you mention.

teeja 13y ago
Remember, these are the people who ran off to Ashcroft's hospital bed when the acting AG wouldn't sign off on their spy program.

mpyne 13y ago

> And to the statement that access is audited... how many analysts were fired for overstepping their ethical obligations? Is that information collected or released? I wish it were public. Apparently analysts do get caught and fired for mundane things like looking up ex-wives so apparently someone is checking. But that doesn't mean everything is being audited either.