How the NSA collects everything you do on the internet

[Grumman]

There's some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that there's going to be an independent panel investigating what the NSA has been up to.

The bad news is that the head of the NSA, the criminal who lied to congress about what the NSA has been up to, gets veto power over who can be on it, and will be reporting the results to the President.

What's that, you say? You don't think that sounds independent at all? Then congratulations! You're smarter than whatever gullible moron Obama's trying to con.

[Thanas]

I thought about actually writing up something to respond to this, but as this is essentially a poorly written rehash of what Edi and Thanas have already said, I'll refer you to my previous two postings as to why your statements are 1) Wholly irrelevent to this discussion and 2) suffer significantly from hyperbole.

Do you think repeating your ignorant and wholly unfounded opinions as facts is in any way, shape or form how it is supposed to go in a discussion?

[energiewende]

The only thing surprising is that anyone is surprised by this. The only real protection your internet browsings ever had was that there are (in relative terms) very few human analysts and a very low signal:noise ratio in choosing which targets to be passed to them. Of course that's assuming you're guilty of something; if you're innocent low signal:noise increasing your chances of being wrongfully picked up. But then, who cares? They won't act against you unless it's important, and even then would try not to admit how they knew, because they don't want to give away their capabilities. See recent-ish British terrorists picked up for faulty insurance information or some such with a bomb in their car. Maybe a fortunate coincidence or maybe it had more to do with GCHQ. I wouldn't give you odds which. Going after some nobody because they're into weird porn (and isn't everyone? it's the '10s!) is not what they're being paid $billions/year to do.

This is the case however NSA is set up. At worst they'll trawl for who to target as before, then apply for some secret warrant or other permission, then get the details from your ISP under the table, or however else. They'll bawl in public about how you're making their lives awkward, but things will go on as they did before. I'd be very surprised if Bundesnachrichtendienst doesn't have the same ambitions, maybe less capability, but not differing in principle. Same for Russia and China. You only get leaks from the ones that are important enough to care about and not evil enough to lock everyone down completely.

[Formless]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; are you just trying to state the obvious "of course the NSA is a bunch of shitbags", or are you seriously trying to argue that their spying isn't important because, in order of how dishonest the argument is, "the internet was never designed with security in mind anyway", "they have other ways of abusing your privacy anyway", "Everyone Else Is Doing it too!", and "only guilty people need to worry anyway"?

I'm sorry, your post just made me scratch my head. I guess what I am asking is, are you evil?

[energiewende]

Well, every state is run by shitbags, and this is typical shitbaggery. I don't know if it is bad; I am honestly not sure. But I'm genuinely surprised to see that it is met with surprise.

[Formless]

Okay, see that's the thing. I don't think anyone here is actually surprised. Thanas definitely isn't.

(Oh, and I put that first one there because I disagree on the factual accuracy of how secure the internet is, but considering your answer I won't pursue it. )

[TheHammer]

I thought about actually writing up something to respond to this, but as this is essentially a poorly written rehash of what Edi and Thanas have already said, I'll refer you to my previous two postings as to why your statements are 1) Wholly irrelevent to this discussion and 2) suffer significantly from hyperbole.

Do you think repeating your ignorant and wholly unfounded opinions as facts is in any way, shape or form how it is supposed to go in a discussion?

When the same statements are repeated, I tend to give the same reply. You and Edi and Metahive seem to want to make this a discussion about US policy as a whole as pertains to punishment of malfeasance. I'm not arguing, nor am I interested in arguing about that topic.

My specific focus are the NSA programs, which as of yet has not produced any examples of actual wrong doing, merely the potential for wrong doing. I stated I'm not concerned about the program, now will I be until such examples (and how they are dealt with) are brought to light.

You asked what evidence I had that this would be any different from the examples you noted, and as I've continually stated the fact that it is an audited system makes cover-up and plausible deniability far more difficult for those that would abuse the system than situations that rely on witness testimony and interpretation of physical evidence.

Your repeated circle back to Abu Ghraib is a red herring. But I'll grant you've done it so masterfully that both Edi and Metahive have bought it hook line and sinker. Although I'm still not conviced Edi read a single thing a posted. His response appeares based on what you wrote, and what he thinks I probably wrote, hence his off-topic ramble about "justice for brown people", and his assumption that I was defending Abu Ghraib, or Haditha.

Metahive is just an obvious ass kisser looking to jump on the bandwagon. His poorly written rehash of what you and Edi already stated didn't even merit a response. But I just couldn't help myself.

[Metahive]

If I had found any merit in your previous blather I wouldn't have commented you stupid git. I find it funny that you first decided that Abu Ghuraib and Haditha were worth defending but then switched to "THEY'RE IRRRELEVUNT!" once you got pounded on them. Do you know why those cases are actually completely relevant? Because they show the government can't be trusted to adequately police itself, as you try to sell to us like the most oiky and untrustworthy used care salesman. The whole NSA scandal only came about because an insider dared to blow the whistle on it, not because the government's self-policing worked. And now that guy's hunted like the most vile criminal. What does that tell us, Hammerman?

Do you know what two of the world's most digusting sounds are? That popping sound whenever a shameless government shill pulls his head out of the government's ass to spew propaganda and the splorking sound when he shoves his head back in afterwards. Whenever you grace a thread like this, these can be heard on a constant basis.

[TheHammer]

If I had found any merit in your previous blather I wouldn't have commented you stupid git. I find it funny that you first decided that Abu Ghuraib and Haditha were worth defending but then switched to "THEY'RE IRRRELEVUNT!" once you got pounded on them.

Nowhere could anything I have said be construed as "defending" Haditha or Abu Ghraib, nor their associated outcomes. Clearly, either you lack reading comprehension, or you're blatantly trolling at this point.

You also lack original thinking as you still have yet to produce any statements that haven't already been (better) said by others in this thread, even when many of those statements are in fact irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Your poorly written +1s and snide comments add absolutely nothing of substance to the discussion.

Do you know why those cases are actually completely relevant? Because they show the government can't be trusted to adequately police itself, as you try to sell to us like the most oiky and untrustworthy used care salesman. The whole NSA scandal only came about because an insider dared to blow the whistle on it, not because the government's self-policing worked. And now that guy's hunted like the most vile criminal. What does that tell us, Hammerman?

You are delusional. I've not been "pounded" on anything. Repeated attempts have been made to steer this discussion off track and I repeatedly keep pulling it back to the issue at hand.

I'm not certain the NSA event even counts as "whistle-blowing" given the fact that there hasn't been any actual evidence of wrong doing. All Snowden described was a technical capability, that anyone with any sort of understanding of computers is not in the least bit surprised about. He also described ways that capability could be abused, but failed to provide any examples of it actually being abused.

Yet, because there are so many people out there who lack the education and experience to understand what Prism and XKeyscore really do, they are running around with their hair on fire screaming about laws being broken, and rights being violated without any actual evidence that any of that has taken place.

Do you know what two of the world's most digusting sounds are? That popping sound whenever a shameless government shill pulls his head out of the government's ass to spew propaganda and the splorking sound when he shoves his head back in afterwards. Whenever you grace a thread like this, these can be heard on a constant basis.

Ah yes, because I don't immediately bash everything the government does I'm a shill. Expecting some sort of evidence of wrong-doing before assuming it has taken place makes me a patsy. It's almost cliche at this point. The truth is I simply understand how technology works and that the programs in question describe technological capabilities, ones that are perfectly legal when used in manners that the law allows. You, on the other hand, are simply a fucking idiot.

[Grumman]

I'm not certain the NSA event even counts as "whistle-blowing" given the fact that there hasn't been any actual evidence of wrong doing.

The Director of the NSA admitting that they're doing it isn't enough for you? What do you want, a notarised declaration from God?

[TheHammer]

I'm not certain the NSA event even counts as "whistle-blowing" given the fact that there hasn't been any actual evidence of wrong doing.

The Director of the NSA admitting that they're doing it isn't enough for you? What do you want, a notarised declaration from God?

Did you miss the tail end of that sentence where I specifically mentioned "evidence of wrong doing"?

The NSA director has admitted that the programs exist and steadfastly insisted that they are 1) being done within the scope of law and 2) that there are safeguards in place, i.e. auditing, to prevent abuse. Actual "Whistle-blowing" would involve evidence that the programs were not being used within the scope of law, or that abuse was rampant and unchecked.

[Thanas]

You are delusional. I've not been "pounded" on anything. Repeated attempts have been made to steer this discussion off track and I repeatedly keep pulling it back to the issue at hand.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the comedy post of the week.

The NSA director has admitted that the programs exist and steadfastly insisted that they are 1) being done within the scope of law and 2) that there are safeguards in place, i.e. auditing, to prevent abuse. Actual "Whistle-blowing" would involve evidence that the programs were not being used within the scope of law, or that abuse was rampant and unchecked.

So in your perfect world, one can build up capabilities upon capabilities and all it takes for you to be convinced they are doing nothing wrong is the word of a spy agency director who has been caught lying several times before.

What is your evidence that such an internal audit would even produce results? List the number of war crimes or abuses uncovered and punished by the previous internal measures. Because you got to have some evidence that those things do not simply exist to whitewash or to provide PR, right? I mean, there must be one war criminal brought to justice by this internal audit process, right? Or at least some court cases being brought forward against corrupt officials who covered up abuses?

Or are you just trolling and obfuscating again?

[Maraxus]

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds

By Barton Gellman, Thursday, August 15, 5:48 PM

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

The documents, provided earlier this summer to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, include a level of detail and analysis that is not routinely shared with Congress or the special court that oversees surveillance. In one of the documents, agency personnel are instructed to remove details and substitute more generic language in reports to the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

In one instance, the NSA decided that it need not report the unintended surveillance of Americans. A notable example in 2008 was the interception of a “large number” of calls placed from Washington when a programming error confused the U.S. area code 202 for 20, the international dialing code for Egypt, according to a “quality assurance” review that was not distributed to the NSA’s oversight staff.

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

[FISA judge: Ability to police U.S. spying program is limited]

The Obama administration has provided almost no public information about the NSA’s compliance record. In June, after promising to explain the NSA’s record in “as transparent a way as we possibly can,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole described extensive safeguards and oversight that keep the agency in check. “Every now and then, there may be a mistake,” Cole said in congressional testimony.

The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.

In a statement in response to questions for this article, the NSA said it attempts to identify problems “at the earliest possible moment, implement mitigation measures wherever possible, and drive the numbers down.” The government was made aware of The Post’s intention to publish the documents that accompany this article online.

“We’re a human-run agency operating in a complex environment with a number of different regulatory regimes, so at times we find ourselves on the wrong side of the line,” a senior NSA official said in an interview, speaking with White House permission on the condition of anonymity.

“You can look at it as a percentage of our total activity that occurs each day,” he said. “You look at a number in absolute terms that looks big, and when you look at it in relative terms, it looks a little different.”

There is no reliable way to calculate from the number of recorded compliance issues how many Americans have had their communications improperly collected, stored or distributed by the NSA.

The causes and severity of NSA infractions vary widely. One in 10 incidents is attributed to a typographical error in which an analyst enters an incorrect query and retrieves data about U.S phone calls or e-mails.

But the more serious lapses include unauthorized access to intercepted communications, the distribution of protected content and the use of automated systems without built-in safeguards to prevent unlawful surveillance.

The May 2012 audit, intended for the agency’s top leaders, counts only incidents at the NSA’s Fort Meade headquarters and other ­facilities in the Washington area. Three government officials, speak­ing on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who did not receive a copy of the 2012 audit until The Post asked her staff about it, said in a statement late Thursday that the committee “can and should do more to independently verify that NSA’s operations are appropriate, and its reports of compliance incidents are accurate.”

Despite the quadrupling of the NSA’s oversight staff after a series of significant violations in 2009, the rate of infractions increased throughout 2011 and early 2012. An NSA spokesman declined to disclose whether the trend has continued since last year.

One major problem is largely unpreventable, the audit says, because current operations rely on technology that cannot quickly determine whether a foreign mobile phone has entered the United States.

In what appears to be one of the most serious violations, the NSA diverted large volumes of international data passing through fiber-optic cables in the United States into a repository where the material could be stored temporarily for processing and selection.

The operation to obtain what the agency called “multiple communications transactions” collected and commingled U.S. and foreign e-mails, according to an article in SSO News, a top-secret internal newsletter of the NSA’s Special Source Operations unit. NSA lawyers told the court that the agency could not practicably filter out the communications of Americans.

In October 2011, months after the program got underway, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the collection effort was unconstitutional. The court said that the methods used were “deficient on statutory and constitutional grounds,” according to a top-secret summary of the opinion, and it ordered the NSA to comply with standard privacy protections or stop the program.

James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has acknowledged that the court found the NSA in breach of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Obama administration has fought a Freedom of Information lawsuit that seeks the opinion.

Generally, the NSA reveals nothing in public about its errors and infractions. The unclassified versions of the administration’s semiannual reports to Congress feature blacked-out pages under the headline “Statistical Data Relating to Compliance Incidents.”

Members of Congress may read the unredacted documents, but only in a special secure room, and they are not allowed to take notes. Fewer than 10 percent of lawmakers employ a staff member who has the security clearance to read the reports and provide advice about their meaning and significance.

The limited portions of the reports that can be read by the public acknowledge “a small number of compliance incidents.”

Under NSA auditing guidelines, the incident count does not usually disclose the number of Americans affected.

“What you really want to know, I would think, is how many innocent U.S. person communications are, one, collected at all, and two, subject to scrutiny,” said Julian Sanchez, a research scholar and close student of the NSA at the Cato Institute.

The documents provided by Snowden offer only glimpses of those questions. Some reports make clear that an unauthorized search produced no records. But a single “incident” in February 2012 involved the unlawful retention of 3,032 files that the surveillance court had ordered the NSA to destroy, according to the May 2012 audit. Each file contained an undisclosed number of telephone call records.

One of the documents sheds new light on a statement by NSA Director Keith B. Alexander last year that “we don’t hold data on U.S. citizens.”

Some Obama administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have defended Alexander with assertions that the agency’s internal definition of “data” does not cover “metadata” such as the trillions of American call records that the NSA is now known to have collected and stored since 2006. Those records include the telephone numbers of the parties and the times and durations of conversations, among other details, but not their content or the names of callers.

The NSA’s authoritative def­inition of data includes those call records. “Signals Intelligence Management Directive 421,” which is quoted in secret oversight and auditing guidelines, states that “raw SIGINT data . . . includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and/or unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice, and some forms of computer-generated data, such as call event records and other Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) metadata as well as DNI message text.”

In the case of the collection effort that confused calls placed from Washington with those placed from Egypt, it is unclear what the NSA meant by a “large number” of intercepted calls. A spokesman declined to discuss the matter.

The NSA has different reporting requirements for each branch of government and each of its legal authorities. The “202” collection was deemed irrelevant to any of them. “The issue pertained to Metadata ONLY so there were no defects to report,” according to the author of the secret memo from March 2013.

The large number of database query incidents, which involve previously collected communications, confirms long-standing suspicions that the NSA’s vast data banks — with code names such as MARINA, PINWALE and XKEYSCORE — house a considerable volume of information about Americans. Ordinarily the identities of people in the United States are masked, but intelligence “customers” may request unmasking, either one case at a time or in standing orders.

In dozens of cases, NSA personnel made careless use of the agency’s extraordinary powers, according to individual auditing reports. One team of analysts in Hawaii, for example, asked a system called DISHFIRE to find any communications that mentioned both the Swedish manufacturer Ericsson and “radio” or “radar” — a query that could just as easily have collected on people in the United States as on their Pakistani military target.

The NSA uses the term “incidental” when it sweeps up the records of an American while targeting a foreigner or a U.S. person who is believed to be involved in terrorism. Official guidelines for NSA personnel say that kind of incident, pervasive under current practices, “does not constitute a . . . violation” and “does not have to be reported” to the NSA inspector general for inclusion in quarterly reports to Congress. Once added to its databases, absent other restrictions, the communications of Americans may be searched freely.

In one required tutorial, NSA collectors and analysts are taught to fill out oversight forms without giving “extraneous information” to “our FAA overseers.” FAA is a reference to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which granted broad new authorities to the NSA in exchange for regular audits from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and periodic reports to Congress and the surveillance court.

Using real-world examples, the “Target Analyst Rationale Instructions” explain how NSA employees should strip out details and substitute generic descriptions of the evidence and analysis behind their targeting choices.

“I realize you can read those words a certain way,” said the high-ranking NSA official who spoke with White House authority, but the instructions were not intended to withhold information from auditors. “Think of a book of individual recipes,” he said. Each target “has a short, concise description,” but that is “not a substitute for the full recipe that follows, which our overseers also have access to.”


Julie Tate and Carol D. Leonnig contributed to this report.

© The Washington Post Company

Link

[Thanas]

So the audit serves no purpose other than to sweep things under the rug and there were no consequences? Who would have thought.

[K. A. Pital]

It feels like every time NSA apologists take out a new argument, Snowden's pals at the press release another bit of info which ruins the entire thing. What a perfect day.

[General Zod]

So the audit serves no purpose other than to sweep things under the rug and there were no consequences? Who would have thought.

But, but, but,their managers wouldn't have any incentive to sweep them under the rug and cover their asses!!!1111!!!shift11!!

[TheHammer]

The NSA director has admitted that the programs exist and steadfastly insisted that they are 1) being done within the scope of law and 2) that there are safeguards in place, i.e. auditing, to prevent abuse. Actual "Whistle-blowing" would involve evidence that the programs were not being used within the scope of law, or that abuse was rampant and unchecked.

So in your perfect world, one can build up capabilities upon capabilities and all it takes for you to be convinced they are doing nothing wrong is the word of a spy agency director who has been caught lying several times before.

What is your evidence that such an internal audit would even produce results? List the number of war crimes or abuses uncovered and punished by the previous internal measures. Because you got to have some evidence that those things do not simply exist to whitewash or to provide PR, right? I mean, there must be one war criminal brought to justice by this internal audit process, right? Or at least some court cases being brought forward against corrupt officials who covered up abuses?

Or are you just trolling and obfuscating again?

Previous internal measures that aren't purely an electronic audit are essentially an apples and oranges comparison. The thing about an electronic records audit is you can't lose the paperwork. You can't claim you didn't do it. Everything you clicked on, every record you searched, is in the database.

One would need an example of actual abuse in order to provide evidence of effectiveness dealing with that abuse. My contention from the start is that given the political climate, that any incidents WOULD be leaked and that I would judge based on how those incidents were handled.

Coincidentally, the follow up article posted by Maraxus provides invormation uncovered from auditing, but unfortunately doesn't detail what was done about it.

So the audit serves no purpose other than to sweep things under the rug and there were no consequences? Who would have thought.

Your statement is premature at best. The audit uncovered issues, and the agency's response is that they were taking steps to mitigate those issues (ranging from training/human error, to programming bugs, to actual abuse). There isn't enough information in the article to know what they did about it. That is something I expect we will find out about either via a press release, or another leak down the road. If they in fact did nothing with the audit data, then expect the appropriate political shitstorm to sweep in and correct the system.

One thing that was telling was the fact that the NSA was using a technique that was later determined by the FISA court to be unconstitutional. That would seem to push back against the notion that the FISA court was simply an NSA rubber stamp, which was one major criticism of these programs.

[K. A. Pital]

If they in fact did nothing with the audit data, then expect the appropriate political shitstorm to sweep in and correct the system.

*cries with laughter* If guys like you didn't exist they should have been invented.

[Metahive]

TheHammel, lemme' explain this to you (again):

BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE (ABU GHURAIB, HADITHA ETC.) IT'S OBVIOUS THE US GOVERNMENT CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO ADEQUATELY POLICE ITSELF AND DEAL APPROPRIATELY WITH WRONGDOERS IN ITS MIDST. THEREFORE YOUR APPEALS TO HOW EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT IF WE ALL ONLY TRUST THE US GOVERNMENT IN DEALING WITH THE NSA SPYING SCANDAL ARE EITHER EXTREMELY GULLIBLE OR EXTREMELY DISHONEST!

The Haditha murderers got, relative to their crime, off with a slap on the wrist. Manning meanwhile, whose crime resulted, by admittance of the US government, in no deaths or any damage other than to the US' reputation, is facing several life sentences because he dared to embarrass the government. Snowden, who revealed the NSA spying scandal and without whom the government wouldn't even have bothered telling the populace, is treated like the most vile traitor.
This is what this is about. The only one trying to sidetrack the issue is you. The only one who's being an ass kisser is you. The only one who's rehashing his points in a poorly written way is you, The Hammel.

*cries with laughter* If guys like you didn't exist they should have been invented.

Remember Animal Farm and that shameless lickspittle that Napoleone had, Squealer? That's what TheHammel's replicating here.

And no, I didn't misspell your name TheHammel.

[Thanas]

So, TheSquealer, how about you come up with all the mistakes people were covering up and how all those people were punished? Or concede that you don't have any and that your trust in the NSA is based on nothing but your own love for the big NSA dick.

One would need an example of actual abuse in order to provide evidence of effectiveness dealing with that abuse. My contention from the start is that given the political climate, that any incidents WOULD be leaked and that I would judge based on how those incidents were handled.

Are you for fucking real? Your response to a challenge for proof is essentially "I don't have any but I expect leaks to tell me any second there are". I repeat: ARE YOU FOR FUCKING REAL? Do you think this shit is going to fly?

Your statement is premature at best. The audit uncovered issues, and the agency's response is that they were taking steps to mitigate those issues (ranging from training/human error, to programming bugs, to actual abuse). There isn't enough information in the article to know what they did about it.

Oh yes, I am sure they are doing exactly what they always do when caught with their hand in the cookie jar: Nothing. Now either put up examples of people fired and indicted for the abuse or concede that your belief is based on nothing but trust for an agency which has been caught breaking the law over and over again and lying about it to boot. Either put that evidence up or concede that you are nothing but a bullshitting apologist.

That is something I expect we will find out about either via a press release, or another leak down the road. If they in fact did nothing with the audit data, then expect the appropriate political shitstorm to sweep in and correct the system.

If you need leaks to tell you that the process is working guess what - the process is not working, nor will it ever work. I shouldn't have to explain to an adult that "Trust me mom, I totally did my homework" is not an acceptable response when you are getting straight Fs.

One thing that was telling was the fact that the NSA was using a technique that was later determined by the FISA court to be unconstitutional. That would seem to push back against the notion that the FISA court was simply an NSA rubber stamp, which was one major criticism of these programs.

I also shouldn't have to explain to an adult that one decision does not a history make, nor does it change the fact that over 99% of all requests get approved while the NSA takes steps to actually leave the authorities in the dark as much as possible. AS SAID IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE, TheSquealer.

[Zwinmar]

In the US government there is supposed to be a series of checks and balances, when one body makes the rules and is accountable only to themselves asshatery ensues. Anything can be 'justified' if the only being that has to be convinced is ones self.

[TheHammer]

So, TheSquealer, how about you come up with all the mistakes people were covering up and how all those people were punished? Or concede that you don't have any and that your trust in the NSA is based on nothing but your own love for the big NSA dick.

One would need an example of actual abuse in order to provide evidence of effectiveness dealing with that abuse. My contention from the start is that given the political climate, that any incidents WOULD be leaked and that I would judge based on how those incidents were handled.

Are you for fucking real? Your response to a challenge for proof is essentially "I don't have any but I expect leaks to tell me any second there are". I repeat: ARE YOU FOR FUCKING REAL? Do you think this shit is going to fly?

You seem to have some bullshit expectation that I should dig up instances of abuse of this system and then also dig up how those abuses were dealt with. Its an unrealistic thing to ask me to do. I've never once said that "EVERY INSTANCE OF ABUSE WILL BE APPROPRIATELY DEALT WITH", I said that I wanted to see HOW the abuse was dealt with before drawing conclusions.

My contention is and has been that an audited system allows for abuses to be identified, which it has. My expectation is that people will be punished administratively where appropriate, when appropriate. If they are not, I certainly will not defend the practice.

If you read WAY back near the start of this, I admitted that the possibility existed that nothing would be different this time, but that I wanted to actually see that happen before I "lost my shit" as you and so many others already have. We still have only part of the picture. You have chosen to fill in the rest with your assumptions, and I have not. That is the real disconnect at this point.

Your statement is premature at best. The audit uncovered issues, and the agency's response is that they were taking steps to mitigate those issues (ranging from training/human error, to programming bugs, to actual abuse). There isn't enough information in the article to know what they did about it.

Oh yes, I am sure they are doing exactly what they always do when caught with their hand in the cookie jar: Nothing. Now either put up examples of people fired and indicted for the abuse or concede that your belief is based on nothing but trust for an agency which has been caught breaking the law over and over again and lying about it to boot. Either put that evidence up or concede that you are nothing but a bullshitting apologist.

We don't know what they've done, at this point, about the abuses/misuse they discovered via audit. Hence my statement that your statement was at best PREMATURE. The fact that there were abuses found is evidence of oversight taking place, and the effectiveness of audits. The only thing I don't know AS OF YET is what was done with that information. All in due course.

That is something I expect we will find out about either via a press release, or another leak down the road. If they in fact did nothing with the audit data, then expect the appropriate political shitstorm to sweep in and correct the system.

If you need leaks to tell you that the process is working guess what - the process is not working, nor will it ever work. I shouldn't have to explain to an adult that "Trust me mom, I totally did my homework" is not an acceptable response when you are getting straight Fs.

The process may well have been working just fine. The only thing the leak does is make the information on whether it was working or not public. It doesn't mean that it was failing to begin with. And while the article is good information, it is far from conclusive as we don't know what was or is being done by the NSA to address the abuses. I expect now that it has been made public that we will get more details on that.

One thing that was telling was the fact that the NSA was using a technique that was later determined by the FISA court to be unconstitutional. That would seem to push back against the notion that the FISA court was simply an NSA rubber stamp, which was one major criticism of these programs.

I also shouldn't have to explain to an adult that one decision does not a history make, nor does it change the fact that over 99% of all requests get approved while the NSA takes steps to actually leave the authorities in the dark as much as possible. AS SAID IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE, TheSquealer.

Good one ThanASS.

Have you ever stopped to think that the reason 99% of requests get approved is because by the time the NSA goes to the FISA court they have their ducks in a row? After all, they do this shit for a living. If most of their requests were rejected I'd assume that they suck at their jobs.

As for "Keeping the authorities in the dark" I presume you're referring to this:

Using real-world examples, the “Target Analyst Rationale Instructions” explain how NSA employees should strip out details and substitute generic descriptions of the evidence and analysis behind their targeting choices.

“I realize you can read those words a certain way,” said the high-ranking NSA official who spoke with White House authority, but the instructions were not intended to withhold information from auditors. “Think of a book of individual recipes,” he said. Each target “has a short, concise description,” but that is “not a substitute for the full recipe that follows, which our overseers also have access to.”

What that sounds to me is that the analysts were creating executive summaries, which is common practice in many industries. You create a 10,000 foot overview for someone who is non-technical in your field, using layman's terms and only key details. You strip out extraneous inconsequential details and work to be concise, without losing anything of substance.

And it's not as though those details aren't available. As noted, aside from the executive summaries there were full detailed descriptions that overseers also have access to. If any of the particular cases turns out to have been truly manipulated, the original details are still there at the touch of a few key strokes.

I want to see an example where an overseer was MISLEAD using this process, or if they understood that this is how the system was to work.

And yes I can already see your over the top reaction now, so please bring it on.

[Thanas]

You seem to have some bullshit expectation that I should dig up instances of abuse of this system and then also dig up how those abuses were dealt with. Its an unrealistic thing to ask me to do. I've never once said that "EVERY INSTANCE OF ABUSE WILL BE APPROPRIATELY DEALT WITH", I said that I wanted to see HOW the abuse was dealt with before drawing conclusions.

My contention is and has been that an audited system allows for abuses to be identified, which it has. My expectation is that people will be punished administratively where appropriate, when appropriate. If they are not, I certainly will not defend the practice.

So, in short, you concede that you got nothing to support your assumptions. Yet you trust the NSA because...you just trust them to be honest, upstanding, correct citizens. You must be the most gullible pig there is, TheSquealar.

We don't know what they've done, at this point, about the abuses/misuse they discovered via audit. Hence my statement that your statement was at best PREMATURE. The fact that there were abuses found is evidence of oversight taking place, and the effectiveness of audits. The only thing I don't know AS OF YET is what was done with that information. All in due course.

No, screw your "due course", little piggy. Put up or concede that you got nothing in the way of evidence which supports your assertions that people have been punished for abusing the system.

The process may well have been working just fine. The only thing the leak does is make the information on whether it was working or not public. It doesn't mean that it was failing to begin with. And while the article is good information, it is far from conclusive as we don't know what was or is being done by the NSA to address the abuses. I expect now that it has been made public that we will get more details on that.

Oh yes, the same agency which lied and lied again will suddenly turn into a champion of civil rights and punish people. Righto. Pull the other one, little piggy.

Have you ever stopped to think that the reason 99% of requests get approved is because by the time the NSA goes to the FISA court they have their ducks in a row? After all, they do this shit for a living. If most of their requests were rejected I'd assume that they suck at their jobs.

No. There is no agency in the world that is so good that 99% of their requests for surveillance are approved (and if you claim there are, cite them) and the article even cites cases where the NSA went ahead and did surveillance without telling FISA anything, which speaks volumes about how serious the NSA itself is taking FISA.

What that sounds to me is that the analysts were creating executive summaries, which is common practice in many industries. You create a 10,000 foot overview for someone who is non-technical in your field, using layman's terms and only key details. You strip out extraneous inconsequential details and work to be concise, without losing anything of substance.

This is not an executive summary.

See this:

Analysts are specifically warned that they "MUST NOT" provide the evidence on which they base their "reasonable articulable suspicion" that a target will produce valid foreign intelligence. They are also forbidden to disclose the "selectors," or search terms, they plan to use. In examples that draw on actual searches, the document shows how to strip out details and substitute generic descriptions.

A senior intelligence official said in an interview that this form provides only the "headline" and that the document should not be misread to suggest that the NSA is hiding anything from its outside auditors. Particulars are available on request, the official said, by supervisors at the Justice Department and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and those offices often delve deeply into the details. The official acknowledged that the details are not included in reports to Congress or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

So contrary to your assertion the FISA court does not get to see any evidence at all nor is it available to them. This is a rubber stamp, nothing more.

[Metahive]

So...no reaction from TheHammelSquealer to this? I bet the next time government abuse of power crops up as a topic he'll be right back with the same apologia and act as if this whole exchange never happened.

[Serafina]

So...no reaction from TheHammelSquealer to this? I bet the next time government abuse of power crops up as a topic he'll be right back with the same apologia and act as if this whole exchange never happened.

You mean, precisely what the government he bends over for does every time there is a "discussion" about rights, freedom or privacy?