Slashdot Mirror
NSA Chief Denies Claims of Domestic Spying
AstroPhilosopher writes "Recently Wired, USA Today and other news outlets reported on a new spy center being built to store intercepted communications (even American citizens'). Tuesday, Gen. Keith Alexander testified in front of Congress refuting the articles. Alexander even went so far as to claim the NSA lacks the authority to monitor American citizens. It's an authority that was given to the NSA through the FISA Amendments Act signed into law by Bush and still supported today by Obama."
Luckily the NSA would never lie to us, or to congress, so I'm pretty sure that we can trust him on this one.
If you work there, you need to keep even well known facts a secret.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
A General lying about his intentions to the enemy?
Say it ain't so!
The problem here is that the US Government seems to regard it's citizens as "the enemy".
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
IIRC, intercepting the communications from intercept points outside the U.S., regardless of whether they originated within the U.S., is how they justify spying on American citizens.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
Listen to what government's balance sheet says.
If the NSA isn't spying on American citizens, then why are they so steadfastly opposed to EFF, EPIC, etc. trying to obtain that information from them in court?
What is their explanation about the monitoring rooms in AT&T's facilities that tap into domestic fiber?
They won't give us an explanation in a court room but they'll make promises that they aren't.
Sorry, I can't trust the words of an organization that is vital to the interest of a dying empire.
When you lie, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. — Adolf Hitler
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Probably what every fratboy at the NSA would do.
After the automated equipment picks up the phone call, they would troll each other with the gay porn audio.
--
BMO
Loophole no longer needed. Remember when Candidate Obama promised to end illegal spying on American citizens? Who would have dreamed he intended to end the illegality by making it "legal" (quote marks to indicate not tested in court). At least he addressed the issue. The other 2008 candidates thought it was just fine the way it was.
It's kind of quaint to look back at how mad I was about the spying when I now tiredly shrug my shoulders about the assassinations and that "due process" now means there is a process instead of meaning a chance to defend yourself in court.
I am a lawyer, but not yours. Anything I tell you might be a total lie intended to benefit my clients at your expense.
Read the order that grants NSA their current authority here.
Executive Order 12333:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12333.htm
(If you go to a public-facing NSA briefing, this is the one they will cite.)
If you are going to do very infrequently do something that is morally questionable, it is usually better to get forgiveness than permission. In cases like illegal spying or torture, that would be through keeping the activities classified and issuing pardons as necessary. "Addressing the issue" by making it legal for the government to do morally dubious things is awful long-term strategy -- it indicates that the government will be doing that often enough to need advance permission.
Replace that with:
"If the CIA isn't spying on American citizens, then why are they so steadfastly opposed to EFF, EPIC, etc. trying to obtain the identities of their officers and front organizations?"
"If federal law enforcement isn't running a side criminal organization for profit, they why are they steadfastly opposed to revealing who is in the witness protection program?"
Really, people. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the NSA wouldn't open up to the world under some notion of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" even if they're lilly white on domestic espionage. Maybe it's because... well... no arm of the military (which they are) in their right mind just says "hey world, come take a look at our full operational capabilities and see just how awesome and scary we are!"
1. An intelligence service cannot be effective if its sources, methods, capabilities, and techniques are known to the adversary. Intelligence processes must be kept secret, even in an open society. This has been true for the history of our nation.
2. Inasmuch as "monitoring rooms" are alleged — because their existence, capabilities, and numbers are NOT KNOWN beyond the assertions of a whistleblower with an admitted anti-war agenda — NSA is authorized to monitor foreign communications WITHIN THE US, and must be able to identify, discern, and target such communications within the sea of digital communications.
3. See 1.
4. How is what you assume NSA to be doing "vital to the interest of a dying empire"? Do you think the world would be a better place without the US, the West, and the ability to project and protect principles of freedom and liberal democracy, even if imperfectly? Would China, Russia, or a chaotic mix of Mideast states and transnational radials really be a better global steward?
I find the inaccuracy of the summary particularly amusing:
"Alexander even went so far as to claim the NSA lacks the authority to monitor American citizens. It's an authority that was given to the NSA through the FISA Amendments Act signed into law by Bush and still supported today by Obama."
NSA lacks the authority to monitor American citizens without an individualized warrant. And the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 actually is more strict with respect to US Persons than previous law: a warrant is required to monitor the communications of a US Person anywhere on the globe. But what the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 also does is allow NSA to target and monitor FOREIGN communications within the US, without a warrant.
I know some people might be stunned to learn this, but the primary mission of the foreign intelligence agencies is FOREIGN intelligence. But what about "warrantless wiretapping", you ask?
In the immediate wake of 9/11, the administration claimed the the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allowed them to target American citizens identified as having contact with the enemy and/or were active combatants. The current Attorney General also argues that the President has this intrinsic authority under Article II of the Constitution. This was the same justification used in the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Other examples are things like journalists embedded with military units having the communications allegedly monitored, which would happen under the guise of the Joint COMSEC Monitoring Activity. And then we have the court cases — all of which involved people or groups who were thought to be linked to terror groups, not just ordinary, everyday citizens.
Even the most egregious examples of "warrantless wiretapping" (as alleged in the leaks to the press, or documented in various court proceedings) in the wake of 9/11 targeted very specific people — and were justified by the Justice Department, secretly reported to Congress, and reauthorized every 45 days. And that program had long ended by the time the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 fixed the dismal state of foreign intelligence collection.
This excerpt (An 'Intel Gap': What We're Missing, Newsweek, Aug 6, 2007) sums up the issue:
Remember when there was still an evil republican in the white house, and people still acted like they gave a shit?
Gen. Keith Alexander also denied the existence of Gen. Keith Alexander, thought to be NSA's Chief General. When questioned upon this subject, Alexander said: "If such a person would be at NSA, I could not comment upon that.". When asked, however, by a curious Congressman Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, whether "NSA" might stand for "No Such Alexander", Gen. Alexander did not hesitate to confirm with "Yes", marking the first time a high-ranking NSA-official has made such a revealing statement publicly. Yet the astonished Congressman Johnson, new to Congress and unfamiliar with such sensitive matters, asked the NSA's envoy once more in, what was perceived as too direct a fashion: "But General Alexander, if such a Person does not exist at NSA, then who are we talking to today?" After the gasps of horror subsided, Gen. Alexander answered in his usual humorous fashion, that he became well-known for ever since serving in Germany: "I could tell you, but zen you wudd be dedd! HA HA HA".
After the meeting adjourned, another member of Congress sighed (under condition of anonymity), that he still doesn't know who they questioned today. "I mean, there's really no such person working in no such agency (and I have no reason to doubt that this is the case), but still you sit there and listen to this person from that agency and it's like totally freaking you out, man!"
Congressman Johnson was unfortunately unavailable for an interview. He was found dead the next morning in the Potomac river, having died of accidental causes according to, strangely, Utah Police. A spokesman said "You know, we get that a lot over there in D.C...that people drink a little too much, stumble around with their feet in some fresh concrete and then jump in the river to cool of from the intoxication, where, tragically, they get pulled to the bottom by the now solid bricks encasing their expensive shoes." The NSA was unavailable for comment...
Meh. I worked at NSA for about a year back in the '80s, and I have read "Puzzle Palace." Quite frankly, "Puzzle Palace" was very sensationalist. For example, I remember reading about the electric fence around FanX (IIRC). I spent a couple of months working at FanX while waiting for my clearances to come through so I could actually start doing what I was hired to do. Guess what? FanX was surrounded by barbed-wire fence, but there was no electric fence there. The history of NSA in the book was interesting, but Bamford exaggerated a bit in his descriptions of what it was actually like there. "Puzzle Palace" was more Nancy Grace than Peter Jennings.
On the flip side, my year at NSA made me very skeptical of a lot of things I heard prior to 2004. Where I worked, we had signs posted everywhere reminding people that it was illegal (by Executive Order) for NSA to spy on Americans. We were chartered for the purpose of foreign surveillance, so Americans were off-limits. Then came the revelation of NSA wiretapping at AT&T and other telcos. Sigh. I'm just glad I don't work there anymore.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Those who care about issues, such as Glenn Greenwald, and the American Civil Liberties Union, rather than partisan hackery do in fact give a shit, and have given Obama a hard time about this, and some have gone so far as to suggest supporting Ron Paul precisely because of his position on these issues.
I am officially gone from
I don't deal with the spying aspect of spying. I'm more on the application of force side of the military industry, and I think one of the major issues I come across is a 'I don't care' attitude from a lot of the workers who are ex-military.
Not that they 'don't care' in a lazy manner, but that they don't care because they are used to being in the military, subject to military life, and charged with fighting an enemy. To a lot of them, they don't care about the 'technicalities' or subtlety of our diplomatic face, they care about getting the job done.
So when it comes to issues like the drone strikes, they don't care if we are launching attacks against targets which are constitutionally tricky. They care that the target was hit, and since he was part of the 'enemy' all that mattered was that the enemy was eliminated. The fact that the method was unsavory/illegal/unconstitutional/badPR etc, didn't matter to them.
It's an interesting observation since I come from a background of having left the military due to philosophical differences. (The not forced, but highly 'encouraged' Christianity I experienced at the USAFA and later USAF brought me borderline to becoming a conscientious objector, in addition to my disillusionment at being hit with the extreme evangelism at a military institution. I understand it's since been corrected, but when I was there it was pretty heavy handed) It makes a LOT of sense that our military industry is staffed by ex-military because they have a lot of the experience of how these systems will be used, but our military has become exceedingly adept at adjusting the viewpoints of the people in the military (intentionally and unintentionally).
Now, that's not exactly bad (I haven't run across 'bad' people, just a lot of very 'military' minded people)... I just worry that we tend to encourage a culture in the industry that lacks concern for the application of technology, or even goes so far to encourage technology that runs counter to our declared values. In the end, if I have a requirement to get a rocket to carry payload X and accuracy Y, I will design it, but that doesn't mean I don't also have an interest in seeing that when that rocket is launched, it is launched when there is no other choice but to launch that rocket.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj