NSA (partially) Declassified

Lally Singh writes "Posted yesterday on the National Security Archives was the NSA's "Transition 2001" report, prepared as an introductory report for President Bush (II)'s incoming administration. "The largest U.S. spy agency warned the incoming Bush administration in its 'Transition 2001' report that the Information Age required rethinking the policies and authorities that kept the National Security Agency in compliance with the Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibition on 'unreasonable searches and seizures' without warrant and 'probable cause,' according to an updated briefing book of declassified NSA documents posted today on the World Wide Web.""

Comments

Re:The 4th is already void

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Delayed warrants go back to the late seventies.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)

No shit...

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent makes a good, if sad point. Read this if you want to understand:

Guantanamo Bay Detention of prisoners:

Three British prisoners released in 2004 without charge have alleged that there is ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution being committed by U.S. forces at Guantánamo Bay and have released a 115-page dossier detailing these accusations [1] (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/guan-a0 6.shtml). They also accuse British authorities of knowing about the torture and failing to respond. Their accounts have been confirmed by two former French prisoners, a former Swedish prisoner, and a former Australian prisoner. In response to accusations, US Navy Secretary Gordon England has claimed that a Navy inspector general has performed a review of the practices at Guantánamo and concluded that it was "being operated at very high standards."

Former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, freed last month after nearly three years in captivity, has accused his American captors of torturing him and other detainees arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr Begg, in his first broadcast interview since his release, claimed that he "witnessed two people get beaten so badly that I believe it caused their deaths".

On November 30, 2004, The New York Times published excerpts [2] (http://nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.ht ml?ei=5094&en=8d107165e454d8b6&hp=&ex=1101877200&a dxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1101843681-+nTyVV Jpq8yXt1yEg4X28g) from an internal memo leaked from the US administration, referring to a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The report points out several activities which, it said, were "tantamount to torture": exposure to loud noise or music, prolonged extreme temperatures, or beatings. It also reports the existence of a behavior science team (BSCT), also called "Biscuit", and the fact that the physicians of the base communicate confidential medical information to the interrogation teams (weaknesses, phobias, etc.), resulting in the prisoners losing confidence in the medical team of the base. Access of the ICRC to the base was conditional, as is normal for ICRC humanitarian operations, to the confidentiality of their report; sources have reported that heated debates had taken place at the ICRC headquarters, as some of those involved wanted to make the report public, or confront the US administration. The newspaper said the administration and the Pentagon had seen the ICRC report in July but rejected its findings. AP (Guardian) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,128 0,-4645430,00.html), Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=top News&storyID=6951969). The story was originally reported in other newspapers when the report was leaked in May. [3] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,, 1213640,00.html). The ICRC reacted to the article ICRC comments (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList4 /C5667B446C9A4DF7C1256F5C00403967).

See also:

Camp X-Ray
and:
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

No, it's not about SS and Gestapo in Nazi Germany, it's about our US Army. I wish it never happened but it did and we as real patriots have the responsibility to talk about it.

Re:Finally

[houghi]

"algorithms from the NSA are considered a sort of alien technology: They come from a superior race with no explanations."

If you think Belgians are alien, you are right. However there ARE explanations for the algoritms used: AES Algorithm (Rijndael) Information

Let me set you straight

[Anonymous Coward]

I work there. You've got it backwards.

The rules for access to data are extremely strict and the NSA takes the 4th Amendment very seriously.

The governing directive is USSID 18 (here is an older declassifed version). Anyone requiring access to certain types of data is thoroughly briefed on this (even if you're a developer and just need data to work with).

If you're an analyst requiring an account on one of the search tools you get the above mentioned briefing and a more tailored briefing. In addition, before an account is granted two auditors at a supervisory level must be identified. Those auditors get a weekly report of every search you conduct.

People have lost their clearances over misusing the databases (which also means the loss of the job). No one at the NSA is cavalier with the data and access is tightly controlled. The NSA definitely works hard to remain within the law, and any violations are incidental, not some sort of secret big brother program.

Besides, anything found through the illegal use of data couldn't be used in court, and the loss of the public trust would hurt the NSA far more than catching you downloading "The Family Guy". The real bad guys (legitimate and lawful targets) though, we work very hard to take down.