Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NSA (partially) Declassified

Posted by Hemos on from the the-joy-of-politics dept.

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.""

18 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. oblig. sneakers quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dick Gordon: National Security Agency.
    Martin Bishop: Ah. You're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone.
    Dick Gordon: No, that's the FBI. We're not chartered for domestic surveillance.
    Martin Bishop: Oh, I see. You just overthrow governments. Set up friendly dictators.
    Dick Gordon: No, that's the CIA. We protect our government's communications, we try to break the other fella's codes. We're the good guys, Marty.
    Martin Bishop: Gee, I can't tell you what a relief that is, Dick.

  2. Well.. by yuriismaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can only assume the information declassified might intersect that which is already known...

  3. Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th by argoff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 4th clearly wasn't tough enough. It is simply all to esay to make up phony causes "like the war on drugs", like "catching terrorists" as an excuse to do anything they want. The 4th should have been much more demanding, and demanded harsh punishment for those who do anything that has the effect of weakening it.

    1. Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      those that drafted those never thought that our fellow citizens would have the apathy for tyrrany that we currently do.

    2. Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th by Sheepdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's ironic that the founding fathers were questioning even *having* a bill of rights. Their reason? You should be allowed to do anything, and putting down in words what you have a right to do would eventually limit people to only those things.

      The federal government was never intended to be as large as it is now. I don't think a single founding father would look at the federal government today and say, "Good job", unless they were being sarcastic.

      Oh well, at least we still have the Libertarians.

    3. Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humankind has remained mostly unchanged for thousands of years. To presume (without evidence) that Americans of 200+ years ago were somehow vastly different in mode of thought is just silly.

      The mode of thought may not be much different, but the circumstances are much different. At one time, most of the U.S. was rural, and owned a gun. Private conversations happened behind the barn, and there was no such thing as a shotgun mike. A stranger seen breaking in was subject to being shot on sight. There was no thought of databasing everyone's personal information because there was no practical way to store and retrieve it (for that matter, it's questionable if there was enough paper and ink available for that). There were no photo IDs or fingerprints. In essence, you were who you said you were, perhaps backed up by other people agreeing.

      The fault is that they never imagined such an invasive government to be technically possible.

    4. Re:Yes the gove does need to rethink the 4th by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The type of government the founding fathers envisioned could never hope to effectively govern the US as it is today.

      The type of government they imagined would have done better. Consider that each of the states was to handle anything within that state, and that they are about the same size as many countries in the E.U.

      The Federal Government was meant to be literally a Federation of state governments, overseeing interstate commerce, organizing the state militias into a common force, and providing absolute limits on the power any state government could weild against it's citizens.

  4. there is at least a marginal concern for the 4th by MC68000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    from page 32 (38 in PDF viewer of nsa25.pdf)

    Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the fourth amendment and all applicable laws.

    There is some concern at least. This would mean nothing if it were a public statement, but it's a bit reassuring that they think this even in documents not meant for public consumption

    --
    E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
  5. Re:The 4th is already void by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    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)
  6. No shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
  7. Forever and ever. by AnZhiLan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom is never "won". It's not a battle that you fight, win, and from then on people can enjoy the victory.

    It's always, ALWAYS hanging by a thread.

    Every generation will have to keep fighting for it, over and over, until the end of time.

    Those who look at things like Nazism as freak accidents are only fooling themselves. Oppressive governments are the rule, not the exception in history. People are easily convinced, either quickly in harsh circumstances, or in slow, careful and quiet measures in good times, to at first not care about others, and then not care about themselves.

    Even if you're lucky enough to live in a country whose founding is based on some good ideals, you've still got to realize, that country will spend the rest of its history struggling to get anywhere near living up to those ideals.

  8. Will the real terrorists please stand up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it interesting that with all of the flag waving, and beating of drums to "protect America", we never hear urgent discussion of the greatest threat this country has ever faced.

    If blowing up a building is terrorism, surely attempting to evicerate the Constitution and sacrificing every thing that makes the U.S. worth protecting is high treason!

    If the terrorists goal is to destroy the American way of life, what does that say about those federal agencies and Congresscritters that are so anxious to dismantle the principles of the American way of life?

    If terrorism is the deliberate creation of fear in the civillain population to further a political goal, what does that say about DHS's perminant orange alert telling us to be afraid.

    What does the fact that I wonder if I should post this anonymously say?

  9. Re:there is at least a marginal concern for the 4t by Homology · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the fourth amendment and all applicable laws. There is some concern at least. This would mean nothing if it were a public statement, but it's a bit reassuring that they think this even in documents not meant for public consumption

    The accellerating attacs on civil liberties and human rights, in particular under Bush II, are very worrysome. The new General Attorney is the very same man that wrote in a memorandum that the Geneva Convention is obsolete when it come to "the war on terror". That torture could be done. Who are now the bad guys? It's sure is getting confusing :

    "This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."

    Most people who hear this quote today assume it was uttered by a senior officer of the Bush administration. Instead, it comes from one of history's greatest mass murderers, Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant at Auschwitz. Such a confusion demonstrates the depth of the United States' moral dilemma in its treatment of detainees in the war on terror.

  10. Re:Finally by houghi · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  11. this might not be popular here, but.... by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...let's keep in mind that the NSA exists for a reason, and that reason is important.

    In the same sense that tinfoil-hatters are constantly alert to the possibilty that "they are watching us", the NSA exists because there are countries and organizations and individuals whose interests ARE inimical to the United States. It shouldn't have to be said this shortly after the Cold War, or even Sept 11, but the security agencies of the United States have a serious and IMPORTANT function.

    Do they go overboard? Once in a while, no question they exceed their mandate, usually from an overzealous interpretation of their duties. Yes, it's important to find a careful compromise between secrecy and oversight REQUIRED by a free society.

    However, I think occasionally /. tends to drift into Pollyanna-land where the only thing we have to fear is those 'debbils' in government that want to take our freedoms away. No. Let's keep our priorities straight and remember that while overzealous policemen certainly need to be disciplined and corrected, they are STILL the "good guys" as long as you are realistic and remember the really BAD alternatives out there.

    --
    -Styopa
  12. What 4th amendment? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The NSA warned Bush that action must be taken to protect the 4t amendment.

    Bush then passed the Patriot Act, with effectively suspends the 4th amendment (and 6th).

    And the American people said ..

    "thank you thank you! please take more of my inaliable rights away from me so I can feel safe from the enemies my government makes for itself!"

    The average american decided it was ok to allow their fellow citizens to be arrested and held without charge, without being allowed to see a lawyer or even notify family. As long as the thousands of citizens that were now being abused was not them personally, then who cares.

    When really, they should have carried out their own Constitutional Responsibility to fight for those rights to the point of overthrowing Bush.

    But the average american stopped thinking they need to act on their responsibilities a few decades ago when suing everyone for any stupid reason became the norm.

    America has died at the hands of its own people. Welcome back to 1930's Germany.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  13. Bush did not *pass* the Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The House of Representatives did. The US Senate did by a margin 98-2 or similar. Even John Kerry voted for it and never went back to vote against it.

    Kinda like the Kyoto Accords - they went down in the US Senate 95-0.

    Hell, the US declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor had more opposition.

  14. Let me set you straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    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.