Slashdot Mirror
NSA Official Disputes Chief's Claim That Agency Doesn't Collect American Data
NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander was playing a "word game" when he said the agency does not collect files on Americans according to William Binney, a former technical director at the NSA. Binney says the NSA does indeed collect e-mails, Twitter writings, internet searches and other data belonging to Americans and indexing it. "Unfortunately, once the software takes in data, it will build profiles on everyone in that data," he said. "You can simply call it up by the attributes of anyone you want and it's in place for people to look at."
Collecting e-mail without a warrant violates the fourth amendment. Any government official who does this or orders it done is violating the civil rights of both the sender and the addressee under color of authority. If we had a justice system in this country, they'd end up behind bars for that.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
9/11/2001
I spotted the fed!
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
The worst thing Google will deliver is laser-guided advertisements.
The worst thing NSA will deliver is laser-guided bombs.
Yes, you're 100% correct. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is stricter than previous law. It is expressly prohibited to target, collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the communications content of US Persons without a warrant.
Your mistake is, apparently, believing that it's happening without any sort of proof.
What we have done is shifted the notion of who is or isn't a US Person from the a place to a person.
Before 9/11, we assumed anyone — or any traffic — inside the US was a US Person, and that anyone outside the US was fair game. After 9/11, and with the increasing levels of foreign traffic traveling over the internet instead of walkie-talkies in foreign countries, the IC, and NSA in particular, was in the difficult position of needing to target traffic within the US. A series of secret orders and stopgap legislation (like the temporary Protect America Act) supported this.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 completely changes the pre-9/11 paradigm. Now an individual warrant is required to target a US Person anywhere on the globe, while foreign targets — even within the US — explicitly do NOT require a warrant. Foreign targets outside the US have never required a warrant, and shouldn't just because they or their traffic enter the US.
Right now, this very second, government and law enforcement have all sorts of powers they can abuse, and they have since the founding of our nation. At the same time, intelligence operations require secrecy in order to be successful. Sun Tzu said this millennia ago, long before any construct of the US, much less the West, ever existed. Yet, instead of actually becoming informed about the purpose and function of our foreign intelligence activities, people choose to believe that our government is on a singular mission to spy on Americans illegally.
If anyone claims to care about this topic at all:
1. Read my other comment on this story
2. Read former NSA and CIA director General Michael Hayden's 2006 remarks on this topic at the National Press Club (if you do nothing else, just read this)
3. Watch this months-old National Geographic Documentary on NSA
4. Ask yourself if it really makes sense that hundreds, if not thousands, of professional civilian and military members of our government have so little regard for their fellow citizens that they are systematically violating both the letter and spirit of law and the Constitution, not just once or twice or a handful of times, but every single day, with respect to every single American — when NSA's primary purpose and reason for being is FOREIGN signals intelligence — while utterly ignoring the legitimate complexity and challenges of targeting foreign traffic, in real time, on equipment and networks within the United States.
Technicalities like you are pointing out are certainly little more than a poor cover for breaking our own laws. As I just pointed out in this thread, these people (as in NSA, financial and political elites, MIC etc) are no longer held accountable to the law of the land. The dont care that they are violating the fourth amendment, technicality or not... there are no repercussions for their illegal actions (other than some wining in some online forums and twitter - with no political consequences even for that).
The past decade has witnessed the most severe crimes imaginable by political and financial elites: the construction of a worldwide torture regime, domestic spying perpetrated jointly by the government and the telecom industry without the warrants required by the criminal law, an aggressive war waged on another country that killed hundreds of thousands of people, massive financial fraud that came close to collapsing the world economy and which destroyed the economic security of tens of millions, and systematic foreclosure fraud that, by design, bombarded courts with fraudulent documents in order to seize homes without legal entitlement. These are not bad policies or mere immoral acts. They are plainly criminal, and yet – due to the precepts of elite immunity which were first explicitly embraced during Ford’s pardon of Nixon — none of those crimes has produced legal punishments.
By very stark contrast, ordinary Americans are imprisoned more easily, for longer periods of time, and in greater numbers than any nation on earth. New legal classes of non-persons with no rights have been created over the last decade as well. Thus, over the same four decades that elite immunity has taken hold, the nation — namely,the same elite class that has aggressively vested itself with the right to act with impunity — has resorted to ever more merciless punishment schemes for ordinary Americans and others who are marginalized who, for multiple reasons, have very few defenses when the state targets them for punishment. While being rich and powerful has always been an advantage in the judicial system (and in all other aspects of American life), our political culture has now explicitly renounced the concept of equality of law, and it is thus now unabashedly clear that who you are is far more important than what you do.
What gets me every single time is how Americans seem to have no problem with the whole "foreigners are fair game" stuff.
I beg your fucking pardon? If you breed and keep institutions with that sort of double standard, don't be surprised when that double standard gets turned on you, is what I'm thinking.
The Government does not want Google to be run by the U.S. government. Keeping Google as a private corporation complicit to the whims of the Government allows the government of the USA to avoid the entanglements and restrictions of the Constitution.
I don't know about your criticism of the TSA or healthcare, but speaking out against Apple is a serious offense.
Ask yourself if it really makes sense that hundreds, if not thousands, of professional civilian and military members of our government have so little regard for their fellow citizens that they are systematically violating both the letter and spirit of law and the Constitution
It very much makes sense. We have fairly severe restrictions on our police forces and they regularly try and often succeed in circumventing them. The FBI has a decades long record of abusing the civil rights of US citizens. Every law enforcement and intelligence agency regularly chaffs against the restrictions placed on their power. Those same "professionals" you cite did nothing while our government condoned torture in clear violation of the spirit and letter of our laws. Why should I believe the NSA is any different? Those restrictions are inconvenient, expensive and it's not as if regular citizens can check their work to ensure they aren't breaking the rules. I believe they have power without sufficient accountability and that is almost certain to result in abuse of that power.
Trust the NSA? No I don't trust the NSA, it's employees or any other branch of our government and that is the way it should bet. We have checks and balances because we KNOW we cannot trust them. Unchecked power absolutely will be abused. The real question is do we have sufficient oversight from congress or the judiciary? It's not clear that we do.
The Stasi doesn't man the wall or shoot at people trying to cross the wall. Sorry chief.
The Gestapo doesn't run concentration camps or has anything to do with concentration camps. Sorry chief.
The NSA doesn't do rendition or has anything to do with rendition. Sorry chief.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
This. A hundred times this. Now y'all go and look up the definition of the word "fascism" and ask yourself if this is a trend you want to see continue.
This is a good comment. No, I don't think anyone is asking you to blindly trust NSA or any other element of government. But as government is ultimately here to serve the people, you can't exclusively have distrust of every single action government takes. Be cautious, be vigilant. But as I have said before, the mistake is believing that because there are some examples of abuse or mistakes — and there are plenty — that EVERY activity is intentional, systematic government abuse.
This is an excellent question, and one that has always been relevant to the Intelligence Community. Oversight of the IC has always been institutional oversight, not direct oversight by the public. But intelligence operations require secrecy to be effective — and that secrecy, especially in an open society, invites confusion, suspicion, misunderstanding, and distrust. So don't blindly "trust" NSA, but have the fortitude to thoroughly examine its purpose, missions, and history, and the challenges associated with executing its missions.
The trouble is the mistaken and misguided belief that if there has ever been an example of abuse, or a mistake, then ALL activity MUST be abuse.
Nice strawman. The problem is that sometimes there is ALWAYS the potential for abuse and sometimes there actually are abuses. Thus we need oversight and lots of it. No rational person is claiming everything the NSA has done is abuse or in error. But only a naive fool would assume that the NSA is an entity to be trusted.
Look, NSA intercepts communications, and it does so for only one purpose -- to protect the lives, the liberties and the well-being of the citizens of the United States from those who would do us harm
You cannot possibly know that with any actual certainty. However even if true, that does not mean that US citizens cannot be abused by the actions of the NSA in the process. We locked up thousands of innocent citizens of Japanese descent in the 1940s in the name of "protecting" US citizens. There are almost countless examples of our law enforcement and government agencies abusing citizens with all the good intentions in the world. Martin Luther King was considered extremely dangerous by the FBI. Our government has a LONG track record of abusing citizens even when they have the best of intentions and that's even taking into account that the US government is relatively benign and benevolent compared with some of the other governments out there. (it could be a lot worse) Believing the only purpose of the NSA and it's employees is to protect US citizens is naive on the face of it. And even it if were true, it doesn't mean that bad things won't happen to people who do not deserve it.
It's a question drilled into every employee of NSA from day one, and it shapes every decision about how NSA operates.
Even if true (and I very much doubt that it is) that means precisely nothing. People do all sorts of evil things while thinking they are doing the right thing. Laws get followed that are bad laws. Don't get me wrong, I think the NSA or an organization similar to it serves an important purpose. But I don't really care at all what comes out of the mouths of the people in charge of it. What they are doing has the potential to both violate the law and to result in real and tangible harm to the rights, person and property of US citizens and that is worthy of serious concern.
if the Constitution applied, in a practical sense, to everyone on the globe, what is the purpose for national borders?
To delineate who gets the postive rights secured by the rest of the US laws, as opposed to the negative rights from the constitution. To keep people not wanted in the US out of the US. To delineate who has to pay US tax. There are plenty of other uses for national borders than to delineate who gets a certain set of rights.
Why should a US court decide whether the Intelligence Community can target a Chinese military communications hub, or an al Qaeda satellite phone?
Because the intelligence community in question operates on US soil, and is thus held accountable to the US courts. Or do you think they should have the right to arbitrarily kill foreigners in the US as well? Because the intelligence community in question is part of the US government, and is thus bound by the statutes limiting what the US government can do, including the constitution.
Whether there's a real distinction depends on whether Google is sharing its data with the NSA. If Google collects data and voluntarily turns it over to the NSA without a warrant, no law is broken, because Google is allowed to do whatever it wants with its data. And that results in the same practical effect as would've been the case if the NSA collected the data itself.
If you want to keep the two distinct, we need laws limiting what companies like Google are allowed to do with their data, such as when they're allowed to share it with the government.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Actually its better for the government that way as its not bound by the constitution and thus makes it easy for them to get data without any of those "pesky" rights getting in the way. We've seen for years that FISA is a "rubber stamp" court and by simply using someone like Google to collect the data they aren't subject to freedom of information requests.
Frankly if groups like the NSA aren't so chummy with Google they have a "Google liaison" just to keep it nice and friendly I'd be amazed. Just the amount of data they gather on an average day would make J. Edgar green with envy, no way in hell the government just lets that amount of data slide without getting a peek, no way.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
And keep in mind - without intending to Godwin this discussion - that IBM had dealings with the Nazis in Germany before the war helping them gather information on their citizens. Not saying anything like that about the US Gov't-Google relationship, just that companies gathering or processing government information on their citizens can go horribly wrong :P
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Basically what you're saying is, you'd prefer to believe, without proof, allegations that the NSA is illegally dragnet-spying on ALL Americans,
As a technical matter, how does the wiretap apparatus distinguish American packets from foreign packets without reading the American packets?
Claiming that you can listen to foreigners without also listening to Americans is so technically implausible it's ludicrous on its face.
And we exist in a political culture that distrusts two things most of all: power and secrecy.
That you can even claim this with a straight face is proof that you are completely disingenouous. We have the most powerful, and most secretive government the United States has ever had. And there is ZERO political momentum in the other direction.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It is unfortunate that we have reached a point where we expect and accept that our government officials lie to us. We accept it as a necessary evil in a dangerous world. And yet, it is the very people who lie to us who tell us what a dangerous world it is. The American people have lost control of their government.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)