NSA data mining

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Released today:

October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional

https://www.eff.org/document/october-3-2011-fisc-opinion-holding-nsa-surveillance-unconstitutional (PDF) (Note footnote 14)

A month after the FISA court learned of the program in 2011 and ruled it unconstitutional, the NSA revised its collection procedures to segregate the transactions most likely to contain the communications of Americans. In 2012, the agency also purged the domestic communications that it had collected.
...
In addition to the October 2011 court order, U.S. intelligence officials on Wednesday declassified a follow-up order about the NSA’s revised collection methods.

(I do not yet have a copy of this order.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...6ba4b6-0a90-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The USG website created pursuant to Obama's directive is IC on the Record.

The documents released today are at http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/58944252298/dni-declassifies-intelligence-community-documents

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The October 31, 2011 Opinion interpreted:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/21/the-fisa-court-didnt-even-know-nsa-was-c

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The October 31, 2011 Opinion interpreted:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/21/the-fisa-court-didnt-even-know-nsa-was-c

So I spent the better part of the evening reading through all of the opinions and I will say that it is necessary to actually read the opinions in order to get the full story. They reveal the technical breadth of the undertakings of the NSA and the difficulty they face identifying information before it is ingested into their systems for processing. It also goes into great detail about the court's legal reasoning and where the NSA was found to be in compliance and was found to be deficient (solely in their storage and minimization procedures.)

 

[T-Rexx]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Released today:

October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional

https://www.eff.org/document/october-3-2011-fisc-opinion-holding-nsa-surveillance-unconstitutional (PDF) (Note footnote 14)

Thanks for that, palbert.

This is consistent with the information that has been coming out since the Snowden data first became public.

It is interesting, however, that the FISA court ruled the NSA's activity unconstitutional in 2011. It is highly likely that the NSA has simply ignored that ruling and gone on with its unconstitutional activity over the past two years. The NSA has no supervision, so there is no one to enforce the court's ruling.

Let's hope Congress corrects this, and soon.

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The material being ferried was between a journalist and a filmmaker doing a story on the NSA.

Since when does making a film (or doing a story on an intelligence agency) constitute terrorist activity?

And why does Britain care about a film about a US spy agency?

She's not just a filmmaker doing a film and he's not just a journalist doing a story. These are the two people who Edward Snowden turned over thousands of files stolen from the US to. Many of those files, as Greenwald himself has stated, contain information on Britain and their intelligence. He has stated before that he has held back many files that would be too damaging to both countries (which he has now said he is going to publish in a revenge style attack no really keeping with his "responsible release" policy.)

What "stolen" material would that be?

Was something stolen from Britain?

This is a story about the NSA. Which, I believe, is not an institution of the British government.

Information stolen by Snowden from the NSA. There is material in there, as stated by Greenwald, that would be damaging to the UK. Thus, the UK has an interest is obtaining said materials. The UK doesn't need to have something stolen from it in order to attempt to recover said stolen material and prevent it being spread. If someone stole a piece of art from the Louvre, would Britain not be expected to attempt to recover it if they knew someone carrying it was passing through their country?

In other words, absolutely nothing was accomplished by the destruction of the hard drives at the Guardian, and the people who demanded this destruction fully understood how stupid this was.

So, why did they do it, if they knew it was senseless?

Legal compliance. If the information isn't in Britain, then they don't need to worry about it.

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Thanks for that, palbert.

This is consistent with the information that has been coming out since the Snowden data first became public.

It is interesting, however, that the FISA court ruled the NSA's activity unconstitutional in 2011. It is highly likely that the NSA has simply ignored that ruling and gone on with its unconstitutional activity over the past two years. The NSA has no supervision, so there is no one to enforce the court's ruling.

Let's hope Congress corrects this, and soon.

Have anything that supports your "highly likely" claim? The court seemed to have been satisfied in its ruling right after this one that the NSA had comported with the law with its updated storage and minimization procedures as well as after 2011 with their destruction of said data and in renewing these authorities since.

And the NSA has the same supervision that every other entity that has ever fallen under the purview of the law or a court ruling has - various departments of the executive branch as well as the additional oversight of the Intelligence Committees in Congress.

We'll see what Congress does. I'm better it's little to nothing. They're the ones who wrote the laws to begin with. Again, as I said before, go read the actual court documents and you'll see throughout where the relevant laws and statues are referenced and the legal framework with which these programs are developed and run.

 

[T-Rexx]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Have anything that supports your "highly likely" claim?

The fact that the abuses have continued over the past two years (after the court's ruling), the fact that even the Senate Intelligence Committee says it does not know what is going on at NSA, and the fact that the FISA court recently felt compelled to announce it is incapable of monitoring or supervising the NSA's activities.

All of those things make it highly likely that the FISA court is just being ignored by the NSA.

The court seemed to have been satisfied in its ruling right after this one that the NSA had comported with the law with its updated storage and minimization procedures as well as after 2011 with their destruction of said data and in renewing these authorities since.

If the court is so satisfied, why did it feel compelled to point out that it does not and cannot supervise the NSA's activity?

And the NSA has the same supervision that every other entity that has ever fallen under the purview of the law or a court ruling has - various departments of the executive branch as well as the additional oversight of the Intelligence Committees in Congress.

I don't think it is routine for the supervisory bodies of agencies of the US government to have to read in The Washington Post what is going on in the agencies under their supervision.

I don't think it is routine for agencies of the US government to attempt to hide their activities from their supervisory authorities.

We'll see what Congress does. I'm better it's little to nothing.

That would not be surprising. Doing nothing is what Congress does best.

Again, as I said before, go read the actual court documents and you'll see throughout where the relevant laws and statues are referenced and the legal framework with which these programs are developed and run.

The "legal framework" under which these programs were developed and are run is a big part of what is in question here. These are GWB era programs developed when people were being imprisoned indefinitely without trial or charges, when wiretapping and surveillance were conducted on Americans without court orders, when secret prisons were established which did not answer to any legal authority, and when prisoners were routinely being tortured.

All of those things were implemented by the Bush administration under claims that they were "perfectly legal" (with justifications for each written by the attorney general), even though they are all clearly prohibited by American law. That's the "framework" of reference here.

 

[T-Rexx]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The UK doesn't need to have something stolen from it in order to attempt to recover said stolen material and prevent it being spread. If someone stole a piece of art from the Louvre, would Britain not be expected to attempt to recover it if they knew someone carrying it was passing through their country?

Not if it was just a copy of some piece or art from the Louvre.

Your posts do not seem to recognize the nature of the digital age in which we live.

This was not an attempt to "recover" something. The material in question was never physically removed from anybody. It was never actually "lost" by anyone. If Britain ever had this information, they still have it. They don't need it back.

I can understand if the authorities wanted to try to prevent classified information from being delivered to a specific person, but that was not what was going on here. You can't stop the internet by holding someone at the airport for nine hours. You do not detain a person for nine hours just to seize his computers and telephones. This was intimidation. Britain is trying to frighten its press into silence, most likely on behalf of the USA.

Legal compliance. If the information isn't in Britain, then they don't need to worry about it.

In other words, the British government does not care if its actions are futile. They pay their agents to do nothing, for no particular reason, because that is what they're supposed to do. I want that job!

 

[kallipolis]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

In other words, the British government does not care if its actions are futile. They pay their agents to do nothing, for no particular reason, because that is what they're supposed to do. I want that job!

The agents were from GCHQ.....the loving cousin to the NSA.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The agents were from GCHQ.....the loving cousin to the NSA.

With perhaps even less regard for the law.

 

[kallipolis]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The "legal framework" under which these programs were developed and are run is a big part of what is in question here. These are GWB era programs developed when people were being imprisoned indefinitely without trial or charges, when wiretapping and surveillance were conducted on Americans without court orders, when secret prisons were established which did not answer to any legal authority, and when prisoners were routinely being tortured.

All of those things were implemented by the Bush administration under claims that they were "perfectly legal" (with justifications for each written by the attorney general), even though they are all clearly prohibited by American law. That's the "framework" of reference here.

Worth repeating to drive home a certain reality...

 

[kallipolis]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

With perhaps even less regard for the law.

I agree....stretching the intentions of the law....David Cameron will face questions in parliament after the Summer recess....

I suspect that GCHQ will face a much more hostile environment...

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The fact that the abuses have continued over the past two years (after the court's ruling), the fact that even the Senate Intelligence Committee says it does not know what is going on at NSA, and the fact that the FISA court recently felt compelled to announce it is incapable of monitoring or supervising the NSA's activities.

All of those things make it highly likely that the FISA court is just being ignored by the NSA.

So again you use the word abuses when not a single person involved, including the news reports you seem to glean your information from instead of the actual documents they reference, have accused the NSA of purposely or willfully spying on any American. Saying someone is abusing something is indicative of intent. The NSA has self-reported compliance violations, some made from error, some from technical limitations. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee (which in fact has not claimed it does not know what is going on FYI) has said that they have not encountered a single instance of anyone at NSA willfully breaking or circumventing the law.

And the FISA court announcement did not say that they didn't monitor or supervise the NSA. Their statement said they didn't have the resources to have someone at NSA all of the time verifying the implementation of their order 24/7/365, so they had to rely on the information given to it by the Executive Branch. If you take some time to think about it, that's what is true of ALL cases of enforcing court orders. The court doesn't send the judge or some legal assistant to watch someone complete community service - they rely on other people within the Department of Corrections to do that. They don't visit prison everyday to make sure someone they sentenced is there still - the Department of Corrections handles that. This fact was CLEARLY stated in the FISC's statement.

If the court is so satisfied, why did it feel compelled to point out that it does not and cannot supervise the NSA's activity?

They didn't. See above. It is also necessary to see what the question was that prompted the statement from the court's current presiding judge and to see the full extent of his statement. As we've seen with the Washington's Post reporting of the quote of the NSA compliance report from Dianne Feinstein, they tend to have a habit of not reporting the full quote. There is a lot of out of context information here.

I don't think it is routine for the supervisory bodies of agencies of the US government to have to read in The Washington Post what is going on in the agencies under their supervision.

I don't think it is routine for agencies of the US government to attempt to hide their activities from their supervisory authorities.

It's not. Can you point me to one person from the House or Senate Intelligence Committees who claim they haven't received monthly compliance report and are completely unaware of any of this stuff? The leaders of both Committees have said they were well aware of the compliance issues, these programs, and the various rulings of the court.

The "legal framework" under which these programs were developed and are run is a big part of what is in question here. These are GWB era programs developed when people were being imprisoned indefinitely without trial or charges, when wiretapping and surveillance were conducted on Americans without court orders, when secret prisons were established which did not answer to any legal authority, and when prisoners were routinely being tortured.

All of those things were implemented by the Bush administration under claims that they were "perfectly legal" (with justifications for each written by the attorney general), even though they are all clearly prohibited by American law. That's the "framework" of reference here.

Actually, many of those programs Bush did WERE found to be non Constitutional and were ended under the Bush administration. These laws were passed by Congress, have been renewed twice by Congress, and have repeatedly been upheld by the FISC, by multiple federal judges. Now if you disagree with the law, that is a matter for you to work out with your Congressperson.

Not if it was just a copy of some piece or art from the Louvre.

Your posts do not seem to recognize the nature of the digital age in which we live.

This was not an attempt to "recover" something. The material in question was never physically removed from anybody. It was never actually "lost" by anyone. If Britain ever had this information, they still have it. They don't need it back.

I can understand if the authorities wanted to try to prevent classified information from being delivered to a specific person, but that was not what was going on here. You can't stop the internet by holding someone at the airport for nine hours. You do not detain a person for nine hours just to seize his computers and telephones. This was intimidation. Britain is trying to frighten its press into silence, most likely on behalf of the USA.

This was indeed an attempt to recover something. This was material that was a) stolen, regardless of how many copies may exist and b) that obviously wasn't that easy to just "send over the internet" because, if it was, they wouldn't have needed Miranda to be the mule. And the information they were trying to recover didn't just reside on computers and flash drives - Mr. Miranda also contained information they were interested in, which is why they questioned him for 9 hours.

I recognize easily the digital age we live in, but I also recognize the paranoia with which Laura Poitras operates and her general avoidance of anything internet (and even technology) related. Story Here

In other words, the British government does not care if its actions are futile. They pay their agents to do nothing, for no particular reason, because that is what they're supposed to do. I want that job!

No, they pay their agents to do something. I mean all they had to do was show up to get the Guardian to destroy their own computers. They are only concerned about what goes on in the UK, and as along as none of the unpublished classified data exists in the UK, they're ok with that in terms of law enforcement.They didn't force anyone to destroy anything. They told the Guardian that if they kept the material, they would take them to court to get it back. The Guardian could have very well told them to bugger off and fought it in court. They decided to destroy their own computers. So the UK government sent people to verify the destruction. Simple story really.

 

[T-Rexx]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

So again you use the word abuses when not a single person involved, including the news reports you seem to glean your information from instead of the actual documents they reference, have accused the NSA of purposely or willfully spying on any American. Saying someone is abusing something is indicative of intent.

The NSA has trashed the Fourth Amendment. Again and again and again.

Whether they were deliberately trying to defy the law or accidentally destroying democracy matters not.

Failure to obey the law is abuse of the law. Failure to carry out their mandate in a legal manner is abuse of their mission.


Abuse

Abuse A*buse", v. t. [imp. & p. p. Abused; p. pr. & vb. n.
Abusing.] [F. abuser; L. abusus, p. p. of abuti to abuse,
misuse; ab + uti to use. See Use.]
1. To put to a wrong use; to misapply; to misuse; to put to a
bad use; to use for a wrong purpose or end; to pervert;
as, to abuse inherited gold; to make an excessive use of;
as, to abuse one's authority.
[1913 Webster]

2. To use ill; to maltreat; to act injuriously to; to punish
or to tax excessively; to hurt; as, to abuse prisoners, to
abuse one's powers, one's patience.
[1913 Webster]

The NSA has self-reported compliance violations, some made from error, some from technical limitations.

Except, of course, when they were covering up their activities, as they did with their internal audit (which documented their abuse the law and their own directives thousands of times per year).

And the FISA court announcement did not say that they didn't monitor or supervise the NSA. Their statement said they didn't have the resources to have someone at NSA all of the time verifying the implementation of their order 24/7/365, so they had to rely on the information given to it by the Executive Branch.

In other words, the FISA court does not and cannot monitor or supervise the NSA.

If you take some time to think about it, that's what is true of ALL cases of enforcing court orders. The court doesn't send the judge or some legal assistant to watch someone complete community service - they rely on other people within the Department of Corrections to do that. They don't visit prison everyday to make sure someone they sentenced is there still - the Department of Corrections handles that. This fact was CLEARLY stated in the FISC's statement.

Yes, of course it is true of all courts.

So, why did you just complain above that "the FISA court announcement did not say that they didn't monitor or supervise the NSA" when you agree that it does not and cannot monitor or supervise the NSA?

The problem here is that the NSA operates unsupervised. The FISA court is a rubber stamp. And, in those rare instances where it complains, it is ignored.

Can you point me to one person from the House or Senate Intelligence Committees who claim they haven't received monthly compliance report and are completely unaware of any of this stuff? The leaders of both Committees have said they were well aware of the compliance issues, these programs, and the various rulings of the court.

"I remain concerned that we are still not getting straightforward answers from the NSA."

- Patrick Leahy

"Reports that the NSA repeatedly overstepped its legal boundaries, broke privacy regulations and attempted to shield required disclosure of violations are outrageous, inappropriate and must be addressed."

- Mike Thompson (D-CA)

[The new revelations] "are extremely disturbing."

- Nancy Pelosi

"We believe Americans should know that this confirmation is just the tip of a larger iceberg."

- Mark Udall and Ron Wyden (in a joint statement)

http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-revelations-stir-congressional-concern-200706066.html

Actually, many of those programs Bush did WERE found to be non Constitutional and were ended under the Bush administration. These laws were passed by Congress, have been renewed twice by Congress, and have repeatedly been upheld by the FISC, by multiple federal judges. Now if you disagree with the law, that is a matter for you to work out with your Congressperson.

You don't seem to get this. The FISC itself is claiming the NSA violated the Constitution!

The Congress itself is complaining that the NSA seems to be breaking the law.

The only person who seems to believe that everything here is just fine is you.

This was indeed an attempt to recover something. This was material that was a) stolen, regardless of how many copies may exist and b) that obviously wasn't that easy to just "send over the internet" because, if it was, they wouldn't have needed Miranda to be the mule. And the information they were trying to recover didn't just reside on computers and flash drives - Mr. Miranda also contained information they were interested in, which is why they questioned him for 9 hours.

I wonder how many copies of the information (which presumably they already have) they need to "recover?"

If we email them another 500 copies of the data, will they have "recovered" what they need? How about 5 billion copies? How about 5 trillion?

Why don't they recover what they "lost" from their own hard drives?

Does British intelligence routinely depend on people leaking their data to external sources for them to keep a copy of what they have? Why don't they just get better hard drives?

No, they pay their agents to do something. I mean all they had to do was show up to get the Guardian to destroy their own computers. They are only concerned about what goes on in the UK, and as along as none of the unpublished classified data exists in the UK, they're ok with that in terms of law enforcement.They didn't force anyone to destroy anything. They told the Guardian that if they kept the material, they would take them to court to get it back. The Guardian could have very well told them to bugger off and fought it in court. They decided to destroy their own computers. So the UK government sent people to verify the destruction. Simple story really.

The UK sent government inspectors to supervise the destruction of hard drives containing data which the Guardian maintained at other locations, outside the UK. Data which they can access in Britain by simply sitting down at a computer terminal.

The government accomplished absolutely no destruction of information by this exercise. It never intended to. The motivation was to intimidate the Guardian into not printing information that the USA found embarrassing.

The motivation was to make Britain a less democratic and more easily controlled society by suppressing a free press - so that the USA could go on abusing its Constitution.

 

[kallipolis]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

A limited victory at court for David Miranda:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/david-miranda-court-victory-data-police

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Meet a member of Obama's NSA review panel: Cass Sunstein.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story‘s Daniel Tencer.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

So far as I'm concerned the administration's dissembling on the NSA will continue, especially with the introduction of this "establishment intelligence terrorist."

 

[bankside]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Ahh here we go. Propaganda in social media.

Palbert I can't imagine a paycheque big enough to put up with the likes of you, and kallipolis, and kulindahr, and t-rexx, and even your humble servant, bankside. Day after tedious day of futile efforts to put Oz back behind the green curtain. I thought only in China did people have so little to do that they would accept a career of filing reports with their minders, meeting post reply quotas, and frantically e-mailing for approved lines to feed into people's everyday conversation.

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Ahh here we go. Propaganda in social media.

Palbert I can't imagine a paycheque big enough to put up with the likes of you, and kallipolis, and kulindahr, and t-rexx, and even your humble servant, bankside. Day after tedious day of futile efforts to put Oz back behind the green curtain. I thought only in China did people have so little to do that they would accept a career of filing reports with their minders, meeting post reply quotas, and frantically e-mailing for approved lines to feed into people's everyday conversation.

Thanks (I think).

The effort is not futile; we have the high-ground. I, for one, will be even more gratified when we get through the skirmishes (and tigerfan's and Rolyo's rear-guard action) and to the substance: the hops; parallel construction; the mandate to speculate about criminal activity totally unrelated to national security; and, real oversight.

I acknowledge there is some responsibility to surveil, and that in doing that mistakes may be made. A lot of what is coming to light now is alarming - but not as alarming as what I feel is yet to come. I welcome the opportunity to post a criminal reversal because the USG, or other law enforcement entity, manufactured evidence to conceal parallel construction - and the violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

 

[bankside]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Oh I don't think your posts are futile. I think thinks like what is proposed in the report you link to are what's futile.