Slashdot Mirror
Chief NSA Lawyer Hints That NSA May Be Tracking US Citizens
itwbennett writes "Responding to questions from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday, Matthew Olsen, the NSA's general counsel, said that the NSA 'may', under 'certain circumstances' have the authority to track U.S. citizens by intercepting location data from cell phones, but it's 'very complicated.' 'There's no need to panic, or start shopping for aluminum-foil headwear,' says blogger Kevin Fogarty, but clearly the NSA has been thinking about it enough 'that the agency's chief lawyer was able to speak intelligently about it off the cuff while interviewing for a different job.'"
. . . Fox News correspondents were seen sweating, nervously adjusting their collars, and making "SHHHH!" gestures to Mr. Olsen.
What about the secret rooms of ATT, where domestic US traffic was routed to the NSA?
NSA is, not "may be".
On days that end in "Y", in months that have more than 27 days
So much for Imperial America going away with Bush the Lesser.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Those being "Whenever the hell we feel like it."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I am shocked! SHOCKED!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
It is definitely unthinkable that the "certain circumstances" could be when the FISA court has issued a warrant. Right?
"Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.
No, remember this is a Senate committee. "Very complicated" is anything more advanced than a fork.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Because the mission of the NSA isn't law enforcement, and it's a bit chilling to know that the spy agency that is more secretive than the CIA is actually pointing their sights at American citizens, which is NOT what they're supposed to be doing.
"Very complicated" = "not ever actually constitutional, but the courts would never be allowed to challenge it so we could do it if we wanted"
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
"Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.
Possibly, but you have to understand that "the government in power" in this case isn't Obama, or Bush, or Congress, but instead the TLAs and their massive and growing secret activities. It doesn't matter, for instance, that they've knowingly and repeatedly violated the law - both the Attorney General and the federal courts have said, in short, "Regardless of whether the agency broke the law, you can't talk about it in an open courtroom. Case dismissed."
I'm going to also assume they've acquired dirt on most of Congress as well as the President and most presidential candidates, as a way to prevent their funding from being taken.
I am officially gone from
which is NOT what they're supposed to be doing
Unless those people are in communication with people outside the country, in which case they (the domestic phone users) are one half of the call and tracking that is precisely what they're supposed to be doing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm hardly going to debate the ethics or constitutionality or whatever of this, because to the following, it's irrelevant:
If you care about your privacy that much, why are you willingly carrying around a device that's transmitting your position with little or no encryption to everyone who wants to see it? If you want to secure your network, do you leave an open WAP transmitting its SSID as widely as possible? This isn't someone planting a tracking device. This is you shouting loudly to everyone that you're here, and then complaining when someone takes note.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Ever since ECHELON chatter started 10-12 years ago, does anyone really think that the UK–USA Security Agreement nations hasn't been doing this?
The problem is that it'd be hard to track everyone at once, even with super computers and satellites like LACROSSE there are just too many people to track, so they can probably actively track a few thousand to a million people.
If they want to look up where anyone else is, they can hit phone location, email IP, social media logs, international and domestic flight, rail and mass transit tickets and easy passes.
Example - yesterday I traveled from Portland to Tacoma via Amtrak with a ticket (that would be in a database), I flew from Seatac to Anchorage and used a Passport for ID which was scanned. It would be trivial for NSA to know when I traveled, where I am and even what time my card paid for parking here in Alaska.
As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.
I do. NSA was chartered for the purpose of gathering electronic intelligence of our enemies abroad (at the time of its inception, the Soviet Union). I worked at NSA in the late '80s, and at the time, there were signs posted all over warning that NSA was specifically prohibited by executive order from conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens within the United States. The FBI is tasked with domestic law enforcement, not NSA; NSA has no business whatsoever conducting surveillance on American citizens within the U.S.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
What going to be 'very complicated' is reinventing the guillotine.
It would appear that we will have a lot of practice.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
I think it was a Terry Pratchett reference: "He realized that not only was he not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he might even be a spoon".
Free Martian Whores!
If the "certain circumstances" were "when we have a warrant" he wouldn't have had to beat around the bush, he'd simply have said "when we have a warrant".
Free Martian Whores!
wives back home. while they are deployed to afghanistan. at least according to Bamford's "Shadow Factory" (citing Adrienne Kinney, a former intelligence worker who was at an NSA in Georgia)
In court? Spying agencies don't need to bother with court. They can get information to the right people to effect the change they desire.
Sounds like Hoover and the FBI. Everything is cylical in nature indeed.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
And any of this matters how? Historically, all of the collective of government spy agencies (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), has made sharing of information opaque. Its not a 'request for information on a form', its a fat pipe 24/7/365 data stream. Now all of these countries have governments that strictly forbid that these agencies do not spy on the country they are in: The NSA does not spy on citizens within the United States, the GCHQ does not spy on citizens within the UK, the CSE does not spy on citizens within Canada, the DSD does not spy on citizens within Australia, and the GCSB does not spy on citizens within New Zealand. There are no laws stopping the NSA from spying on Australia, Canada, UK or New Zealand. There are no laws stopping the CSE from spying on the US, UK or NZ or Australia. There are no laws stopping the GCHQ from spying on Australia, Canada, US or NZ. There are no laws stopping the DSD from spying on US, UK, Canada, or NZ. There are no laws stopping the GCSB from spying on Australia, US, UK or Canada. So if there happens to be information on the big fat data pipe that runs 24/7/365 that happens to be intercepted from 'partner agencies' about people outside of your normal mandate, then you didn't obtain it from within, and you didn't spy on locals, you just received intel from partner agencies about your own backyard. According to agreements, all of the information gathered from partner agencies is fair game.
Sincerely, Anonymous Coward.
Can't happen. The GOP cut funding for socialist utensils in the last budget.
With a warrant, any cop can do this.
Why is it either a surprise or a scare that the NSA can, with what is bound to be much higher standards for justification (as long as the Republicans aren't in the White House, in which case justification involves merely setting up plausible deniability)?
Anyone within the intelligence community could have been able to "speak intelligently about it off the cuff'. It is clearly spelled out in Executive Order 12333. Everyone within the intelligence community is given yearly reinforcement training on it.
The most important part that is emphasized during the training is that the US Intelligence Community cannot collect or maintain intelligence information on US citizens or those assumed to be US citizens (anyone physically in the US is considered a US citizen unless it is known that they are not) unless they are suspected of working for a foreign "entity".
Therefore, if that person is suspected or known to be working for a foreign entity, the information can be maintained.
There are no legal consequences if it's found that a US intelligence agency accidentally (or incidentally) collected information on a US citizen (think phone call between foreign person and US person), that information is purged from the system, and if related to a crime given to the FBI. There is only a legal consequence if the US continues to maintain the information once it's found and confirms that the US person doesn't fit the criteria in order to keep it. Keep in mind that most of the information that the NSA collects is never reviewed by a human and so isn't looked at to try and figure out if it involves a US person.
Also note that there is nothing that prohibits the US from giving the "incidentally" collected information to US allies who would, of course, share it with us at our request. The executive order only says that the US cannot maintain it.
This is true. I expect that machines are sifting as fast as they can, and people are rapidly eyeballing the results (or listening to audio keyword excerpts at high speed) for human judgements. Something like what Phil Dick described in A Scanner Darkly.
Consider also that analysis of collective behavior can be useful in a variety of ways: controlling the individuals as a herd saves you the trouble of controlling the individuals as individuals.
-kgj
The problem at this point isn't the Republicans or the Democrats. The problem is the Republicans AND the Democrats. Don't matter who is in charge.
That's why I prefer the term Republicrats. We stopped having a two party system a long time ago. Instead now we have a shell game and most of the sheeple eat it up.
Of course they track and watch some Americans. Some Americans are trying to do some very bad things. Simply being a US Citizen does not (unfortunately) mean you don't want to do harm.
Does it need to be done carefully? yes
Does it need oversight? YES
Could it be abused? yes
Can we stop doing it? no
Do we really want them to stop it? NO
it's not like after this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project they just gave up that line of thought and went on to other things =)
As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.
So long as there is personal recourse against the judge that issued the warrant, if it turns out to be unwarranted.
When you use the word sheeple you start the us/them falacy which made wolves out of the previous users of the word.
When you use the word sheeple you reveal to the world that you are a twat.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it