4 ms·

> The difference is that police and military have very well-defined protocols for oversight, carried out mostly in the open, with multiple authorities being inv

> The difference is that police and military have very well-defined protocols for oversight, carried out mostly in the open, with multiple authorities being involved and clear chains of responsibility. So does the NSA through both the FISC court and the Congressional Intelligence and Judicial Committees. As much as people like to gloss over them and brush them off as rubber stamps, if you actually read the released FISC opinions you'd see there was a good deal of pushback (see [1] as an example of the NSA overstepping their bounds and being forced to stop by the court). Likewise, you can look at the in-fighting between Sen Feinsein and former Sen Rogers on one side with Sen Wyden and former Sen Udall on the other. Right now we also have a major disagreement between the Judges on the FISC and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on the legality of the phone records program, which likely won't be resolved unless the law is renewed and it's appealed to the Supreme Court. There is oversight. Yes, it is done in secret for the sake of protect intelligence sources, but it does in fact exist. And, frankly, I think the Snowden disclosures themselves show that they largely work. Before the Church/Pike reforms back in the 70s, the NSA was specifically targeting anti-war protesters, civil rights activists and even congressmen[2]. Now, despite his best efforts, Greenwald has yet to show evidence of a single American that was targeted by the NSA. > Do you think cracking Google networks and the likes were "legitimate actions"? I would probably be really pissed off if that's actually what they did. I'm assuming you're referring to this[3], in which the authors start off trying to suggest that the NSA is breaking into Google and Yahoo data centers, but when you read further and look at the source documents it becomes apparent that what was actually happening was that Google and Yahoo were sending their international data-center traffic across the globe unencrypted, and GCHQ was picking it up on one of their fiber taps. Now stop and consider that every other country that those leased fiber lines passed through was probably doing the exact same thing. I don't see this as NSA abuse, I see this as Google getting caught not protecting its customers' information. And in line with my complaint in my above comment, the article finishes with "It is not clear how much data from Americans is collected and how much of that is retained." So what kind of data is collected? Who is being targeted? Why are they being targeted? What is the data being used for? Am I being targeted? Are other Americans being targeted? The article doesn't answer any of these questions, nor does it give me any indication as to who else might be listening in and what data they're collecting. If the NSA is using that access to gather information on, say, Russian targets, I don't care - good for them. If the NSA was using that access to collect data on the Russian government, and now that intelligence source has dried up, then the Washington Post has just done disservice to the American people. If the NSA is using it to collect American data, or if the Russians are listening in on American communications using similar techniques, now that's newsworthy. [1] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/the-nsa-documents-part-ii-the-october-2011-fisc-opinion/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/the-nsa-documents-part-ii... [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/25/secret-cold-war-documents-reveal-nsa-spied-on-senators/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/25/secret-cold-war-documen... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...

toyg 11y ago
> you'd see there was a good deal of pushback ... that in practice amounted to absolutely nothing, because the NSA kept doing what it wanted pretty much all the time. They just lied a few times more here and there, like Clapper did. It took Snowden to show that they were lying through their teeth. > you can look at the in-fighting between Sen Feinsein and former Sen Rogers on one side with Sen Wyden and former Sen Udall on the other. That's not oversight, that's 4 people deciding what is kosher and being totally forbidden from discussing it in public anyway, as they themselves made clear. That's not how it should be. > Greenwald has yet to show evidence of a single American that was targeted by the NSA. All the stuff about "parallel construction" is enough, to be honest. It's not in Greenwald's docs, but if you sum it to the capabilities that Greenwald reported, it's pretty damning. > what was actually happening was that Google and Yahoo were sending their international data-center traffic across the globe unencrypted In that case, the responsibility of NSA and GCHQ was to alert Google of the vulnerability and ask them to fix it, not abuse it. Or rather it should be -- it took Snowden to discuss what the NSA should and should not do at the political level. > The article doesn't answer any of these questions If it did, you'd be screaming that it's irresponsible disclosure that will harm people on the ground etc etc etc. From your POV, Greenwald is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't; but it's clear from the subsequent fallout that Greenwald was right to publish what he did and how he did it. > If the NSA is using that access to gather information on, say, Russian targets, I don't care As I said, there is a world beyond the US border.
- csandreasen 11y ago
  > that in practice amounted to absolutely nothing, because the NSA kept doing what it wanted pretty much all the time. Did you read the article I linked to? If so, how does your statement mesh with the fact that, based on the order issued by judge discussed in that article, the NSA was forced to change their collection and minimization procedures and delete all of the data that had been previously collected under that program[1]? This was all very much pre-Snowden. > They just lied a few times more here and there Like where? I keep seeing this argument - Clapper said something in a Congressional hearing that turned out to not be true, therefore everything anyone in the government says is a lie. Greenwald has documents on everything the NSA is doing; why haven't I seen any other documents catching officials lying to the public? > That's not oversight, that's 4 people... The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence currently has 22 members; the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has 19 members; the FISC has 11 judges. That doesn't include their any of their staff. > All the stuff about "parallel construction" is enough When Reuters broke the parallel construction story, they mentioned this in the reporting[2] (emphasis mine): "Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE." ... "Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst." > In that case, the responsibility of NSA and GCHQ was to alert Google of the vulnerability and ask them to fix it, not abuse it. The NSA has a responsibility to protect US national security; it is under no obligation to protect to security of foreign communications. Like I mentioned in my comment, if groups outside the US were taking advantage of this to spy on Americans, then that's something I'd like to see in the headlines. If that's the case, the NSA would need to justify prioritizing its foreign spying over protecting US interests. > If it did, you'd be screaming that it's irresponsible disclosure I think disclosing how the NSA conducts its operations without any further justification is irresponsible. If a news agency (especially an American one; I can understand why a foreign one wouldn't care) goes and tells the world exactly how a US intelligence agency is collecting information without showing me evidence of abuse, all they're doing is tipping off legitimate intelligence targets on how to avoid being spied on. In order to show evidence of abuse, you need to answer at least a few of those questions that I posed. I want abuse stopped, not legitimate intelligence work. This article doesn't show abuse. > As I said, there is a world beyond the US border. Which is exactly why we have spies. Do you think the NSA has no legitimate purpose? [1] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/the-nsa-documents-part-iv-the-september-2012-fisc-opinion/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/the-nsa-documents-part-iv... [2] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc...

toyg 11y ago

> you'd see there was a good deal of pushback ... that in practice amounted to absolutely nothing, because the NSA kept doing what it wanted pretty much all the time. They just lied a few times more here and there, like Clapper did. It took Snowden to show that they were lying through their teeth. > you can look at the in-fighting between Sen Feinsein and former Sen Rogers on one side with Sen Wyden and former Sen Udall on the other. That's not oversight, that's 4 people deciding what is kosher and being totally forbidden from discussing it in public anyway, as they themselves made clear. That's not how it should be. > Greenwald has yet to show evidence of a single American that was targeted by the NSA. All the stuff about "parallel construction" is enough, to be honest. It's not in Greenwald's docs, but if you sum it to the capabilities that Greenwald reported, it's pretty damning. > what was actually happening was that Google and Yahoo were sending their international data-center traffic across the globe unencrypted In that case, the responsibility of NSA and GCHQ was to alert Google of the vulnerability and ask them to fix it, not abuse it. Or rather it should be -- it took Snowden to discuss what the NSA should and should not do at the political level. > The article doesn't answer any of these questions If it did, you'd be screaming that it's irresponsible disclosure that will harm people on the ground etc etc etc. From your POV, Greenwald is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't; but it's clear from the subsequent fallout that Greenwald was right to publish what he did and how he did it. > If the NSA is using that access to gather information on, say, Russian targets, I don't care As I said, there is a world beyond the US border.

csandreasen 11y ago
> that in practice amounted to absolutely nothing, because the NSA kept doing what it wanted pretty much all the time. Did you read the article I linked to? If so, how does your statement mesh with the fact that, based on the order issued by judge discussed in that article, the NSA was forced to change their collection and minimization procedures and delete all of the data that had been previously collected under that program[1]? This was all very much pre-Snowden. > They just lied a few times more here and there Like where? I keep seeing this argument - Clapper said something in a Congressional hearing that turned out to not be true, therefore everything anyone in the government says is a lie. Greenwald has documents on everything the NSA is doing; why haven't I seen any other documents catching officials lying to the public? > That's not oversight, that's 4 people... The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence currently has 22 members; the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has 19 members; the FISC has 11 judges. That doesn't include their any of their staff. > All the stuff about "parallel construction" is enough When Reuters broke the parallel construction story, they mentioned this in the reporting[2] (emphasis mine): "Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE." ... "Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst." > In that case, the responsibility of NSA and GCHQ was to alert Google of the vulnerability and ask them to fix it, not abuse it. The NSA has a responsibility to protect US national security; it is under no obligation to protect to security of foreign communications. Like I mentioned in my comment, if groups outside the US were taking advantage of this to spy on Americans, then that's something I'd like to see in the headlines. If that's the case, the NSA would need to justify prioritizing its foreign spying over protecting US interests. > If it did, you'd be screaming that it's irresponsible disclosure I think disclosing how the NSA conducts its operations without any further justification is irresponsible. If a news agency (especially an American one; I can understand why a foreign one wouldn't care) goes and tells the world exactly how a US intelligence agency is collecting information without showing me evidence of abuse, all they're doing is tipping off legitimate intelligence targets on how to avoid being spied on. In order to show evidence of abuse, you need to answer at least a few of those questions that I posed. I want abuse stopped, not legitimate intelligence work. This article doesn't show abuse. > As I said, there is a world beyond the US border. Which is exactly why we have spies. Do you think the NSA has no legitimate purpose? [1] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/the-nsa-documents-part-iv-the-september-2012-fisc-opinion/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/the-nsa-documents-part-iv... [2] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc...