Slashdot Mirror


Intelligence Director Claims NSA Surveillance Reports Inaccurate

Nerval's Lobster writes "James R. Clapper, the nation's Director of National Intelligence, claimed that recent reports about the NSA monitoring Americans' Internet and phone communications are inaccurate. 'The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,' he wrote in a June 6 statement. 'They contain numerous inaccuracies.' While the statement didn't detail the supposed inaccuracies, it explained why the monitoring described in those articles would, at least in theory, violate the law. 'Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States,' it read. 'It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.' Those newspaper articles describe an NSA project codenamed Prism, which allegedly taps into the internal databases of nine major technology companies: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple. Both publications drew their information from an internal PowerPoint presentation used to train intelligence operatives. Speaking to Slashdot, Google, Microsoft and Facebook all again denied knowledge of Prism; the Google spokesperson suggested he didn't 'have any insight' into why Google would have appeared in the NSA's alleged PowerPoint presentation. But many, many questions remain."

36 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Double-speak by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "You are wrong, but I am not going to tell you HOW you are wrong"

    From reading the Powerpoint, I came to a few conclusions. First, the news reports about the details of the program are accurate. Second, the Powerpoint is legitimate, albeit amateur for someone to disregard the standard stylistic guidelines for information that has classifications on it. Third, the full Powerpoint presentation will be declassified in 2037, so do not hold your breath for all the details.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Double-speak by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Second, the Powerpoint is legitimate"

      I don't think so. Note the cost estimates for a program of supposedly massive scale: $20M/year.

      That one number completely destroys the credibility of the slides. Even if you multiplied that number by 10 it would probably still be a bit on the low side.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:Double-speak by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I'm from the government, and I'm doing this to you for your own good."

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. "No Insight" - What they really mean by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google, Yahoo, Skype... "We don't give the NSA access to your mail/chat". What they really mean is: "We let them take copies of everything via the backdoor API, before we even store it"

    1. Re:"No Insight" - What they really mean by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do also notice that they're only protesting that they don't spy on U.S. citizens; they never actually say they do not allow direct access to everyone from outside the U.S.

    2. Re:"No Insight" - What they really mean by void* · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are not protesting that they don't spy on U.S. citizens. They are protesting that they don't "target" U.S. citizens. Even if true, it does not mean that they are not spying on U.S. citizens. It means that they consider any spying on U.S. citizens as incidental, rather than targeted. "We're going to take the data on everyone, but it's ok, you're not the target" is not reassuring.

      --


      Code or be coded.
  3. Great argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would be illegal, so that can't be what happened.

    1. Re:Great argument by Grumbleduke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The key word is "target"; it is illegal for the FISA system to be used to target people in the US. However, we've known for a while that the US Government has a "secret interpretation" of this law which the public isn't allowed to know, for reasons that have to be kept secret but partly because, if released, the information "could result in exceptionally grave and serious damage to the national security".

      One of the main suggestions for what this interpretation is is based on the precise phrasing of the law; FISA prohibits the authorisation of any acquisition of information if it "intentionally target[s] any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States."

      So if the NSA (or whoever) gets an authorisation to acquire information on everyone so that, at a later date, they can search that information to find specific stuff on particular individuals, at the time when they acquire the data they are not "targeting" anyone, and they don't *know* that the people whose information they are gathering are located in the US.

      It's a really well-crafted piece of legislation; I hope the legal draftsmen behind it got a bonus that year... it's even sneakier than all the PR statements coming out of the NSA and the tech companies involved.

      So the bottom line is that this probably *isn't* illegal. But no one can tell for sure, because the people who have tried to sue over this have had their cases thrown out for various reasons.

  4. With Friends Like These, Who Needs Watchmen? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course the NSA doesn't spy on American citizens. That's against the law.

    What they do is allow friendly foreign agents -- like the UK -- to spy on American citizens, and then they share the data together. It's totally different and completely legal.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    1. Re:With Friends Like These, Who Needs Watchmen? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you read the Powerpoint, you will notice that the PRISM program was classified as TOPSECRET//SI//ORCON//NOFORN . The NOFORN part means that other agencies, from the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, do not have access to that information. GCHQ may have had access to the data acquired, but based on the NSA's own documents, the GCHQ was not privy to the source or method of collecting that data.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    2. Re:With Friends Like These, Who Needs Watchmen? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course the NSA doesn't spy on American citizens. That's against the law.

      What they do is allow friendly foreign agents -- like the UK -- to spy on American citizens, and then they share the data together. It's totally different and completely legal.

      they can spy on everyone.

      they can't just spy on person x. but everyone is free game.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:With Friends Like These, Who Needs Watchmen? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does NOFORN mean "Foreign intelligence agencies are not involved in the activities described by this document" or "Foreign intelligence agencies should not be shown or given access to this document"?

      My guess would be the latter. Why would GCHQ be given a copy of this PowerPoint slideshow? Would they even need it?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:With Friends Like These, Who Needs Watchmen? by Grumbleduke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They can spy on everyone, provided at the time they gather all the data they aren't intentionally targeting any specific person they know is in the US. But until they get the data they can't know whose it is, or where they might be. The FISA Amendments Act is a really neat/sneaky piece of legislation.

  5. Inaccurate, sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But only because the reality is worse!

    Or did people forget about how the FBI uses Carnivore and its successors, or that the NSA has had Echelon in continuous operation? The companies that are protesting that they don't willingly hand over the data are probably right, the NSA is probably tapping the datacenters and ISPs directly without telling anyone concerned (see the fiasco at AT&T for instance).

  6. what gets me... by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is that the news outlets are saying it was a secret.

    Is there really anybody out there who didn't know the government has been doing this?

    1. Re:what gets me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before the leak: "Yeah whatever, put your tinfoil hat back on"
      After the leak: "Cool story bro. We've all known this all along. Why are you making such a fuss"

    2. Re:what gets me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I went to an Iraq War protest with my oldest son back in the day. Next time my wife went to print the family's boarding passes for a domestic flight, two passes wouldn't print.

      Mine, and my youngest son.

      Coincidence? If it was because of the protest, they did get the wrong boy, so maybe...

      But I went to that protest fully expecting some kind of retaliation, and was not disappointed. I can board planes easily now, at least until they track this message back to me. Don't think the AC is going to fool them, based on these latest reports.

    3. Re:what gets me... by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We had proof 7 years ago, even on slashdot: http://slashdot.org/story/06/05/11/1216245/the-nsa-knows-who-youve-called [slashdot.org] "Aided by the cooperation of US telecom corporations, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans"

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  7. Re:Cue the consiracy theorists.... by Bodhammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In other news, George Orwell's "1984" was published 64 years ago yesterday.

    "The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  8. google glass, anyone? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Funny

    James R. Clapper, the nation's Director of National Intelligence, issued the following statement:
    "The NSA and FBI wish to thank wish to thank Google and the glassholes for contributing to the panopticon and bringing us real-time insights into the daily activities of terrorists and potential terrorists (the two categories of citizens) nationwide."

  9. Verbal loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is very well crafted response. Look at what he says "'It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen...." - INTENTIONALLY target is key there. They aren't intentionally targeting anyone. They are doing a broad sweep of everyone's data, then analyzing it, at which point they an argue for probable cause and then intentionally target an individual within the scope of the law. Words matter

    1. Re:Verbal loophole by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had to guess, personally, based on what I've heard and what I've seen. I'd say that they are building a network of contacts. They want to be able to see who talks to who, how often, at what times of day and night, and over what mediums. When they identify a suspect, they want to be able to quickly identify who else they should be looking into. To a lesser extent, they want to look for unusual patterns that could indicate something nefarious is going on, most people's contacts to not follow a rigid hierarchy. Most people's contacts aren't segregated into groups that have little to no contact between them.

      The problem with that kind of analysis is that it will never be accurate enough to be useful, simply because of the numbers involved. A .01% false positive rate will completely swamp out a 90% true positive rate, when you are looking at hundreds of millions of people looking for just dozens of potential terrorists.

    2. Re:Verbal loophole by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually its a temporal loophole. See, they can collect the data now, under the auspices of national security and with paper thin protections that restrict their usage. The problem is.... the system exists now. So if they change that rule, oops... the system already exists.

      This means we have to not only trust that they are not now, secretly, misusing the data beyond their claims (whether the claims are bull or not is another question, and whether the claims being true justify it, also another matter), but we have to trust that every future group will do the same, through the future administrations, future panels of judges, future NSA administrators.

      So this is a temporal loophole.... we setup a system that makes it look ok to many people now.... but then we have it so all we have to do is change policy and its already too late.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  10. Re:Cue the consiracy theorists.... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the government isn't spying on all your activities.

  11. Re:Cue the consiracy theorists.... by brxndxn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, what the fuck does it accomplish by calling anyone conspiracy theorists? It's in mainstream media now - and you're still calling them conspiracy theorists? It was leaked, reported on, and it is out there.. and it's even being shown on TV news in the US.

    You're living uninformed and in a bubble if you cannot see the obvious direction the US is headed.. You're sitting there with your head in the sand calling the people that are most vocal about it derogatory names.

    This is just what is reported.. A conspiracy theorist would say that most likely the actual truth is more damming.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  12. Re:The NSA is an Existential Threat to Freedom by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think literally "taking up arms" is premature and would be counter-productive, but parent is right. I'm writing to my Congressional representatives tonight to let them know that I vote and my next vote will be heavily influenced by their response to this revelation. I think I'll also write to my national political party office (I'm registered with a major party) to tell them the same thing. It's also a good time to consider joining/contributing to an organization that advocates for privacy and civil rights.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  13. Words echo in my head by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I'm saying that when the President does it, it's not illegal!" - Richard Nixon, 1977

  14. LOL "violate the LAW"? by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "the statement didn't detail the supposed inaccuracies, it explained why the monitoring described in those articles would, at least in theory, violate the law."

    This scumbag is arguing that the allegations in the stories are inaccurate because the actions they describe would be in violation of THE LAW?

    Since when does the government give a damn about following the law or holding its employees accountable for violations?
    The Bush wiretapping program was blatantly illegal under the original FISA law, the OTS helped banks back-date deposits to mask their insolvency, the ATF smuggles weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. The government openly murders U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

    This guy is arguing that government would NEVER violate the law, therefore any allegations of criminal activity by the government must necessarily be false? LOL

  15. Re:Cue the consiracy theorists.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

    This, by the way, and probably deliberately, is the textbook definition of neurosis.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  16. popup: are you sure? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This was my favorite part of the WaPo article:

    There has been “continued exponential growth in tasking to Facebook and Skype,” according to the PRISM slides. With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”

    so, you enter a name to access his full facebook profile, and there's a popup - are you reasonably sure he's a terrorist? yes/no" I'm glad to know there are safeguards in place!

  17. He's a fucking STASI liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have the warrant, the FBI writes them out for the FISA court, the warrant sends the data to the NSA.

    Yeh we get it, its illegal, so you hid it, you fucking liar Clapper.

    Everyone of you in the NSA that think you're the good guys, if you are the good guys why is the truth so scary. You're the fucking STASI, no different. You kept your mouths shut kidding youselfs you were good Americans.

    STASI

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/3275905/Stasi-police-kept-East-Germans-in-fear-for-40-years.html

    "They did not need torture chambers and rubber truncheons to keep people in line, but instead exploited the insecurities of members of the public, according to author Christhard Laepple."

    "Turning one in three of the German Democratic Republic's 17 million citizens into informers, the Stasi injected fear, uncertainty and suspicion into every walk of life, making sure few people ever uttered anything which might anger the regime."

    "...Most of the spies interviewed professed to be committed socialists who believed they were weeding out capitalist opponents."

    "But others were simply remorseless opportunists with scant regard for the lives they ruined. All withheld their real names for fear of being ostracised. "

    Yeh we get it, you're good socialists trying to weed out capitalist opponents, same thing.

  18. This has been going on since at least 2001. by mindmaster064 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to work at Bank of America and NSA had a black door closet in our office that I couldn't get into. Now mind you I had a security key card that could open any door in the establishment due to me being in the network security team. I could get in any VIP office, the trade floor, any secured area and any BofA server room on the premises but no one in our company could open that one door. So it's not just Internet dotcoms it's all your financial transactions and anything else as well. They are snarfing everything.

  19. Re:The law is irrelevant and does not apply by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tell me directly, of what alternatives do you speak? The Libertarian party is largely blind to the problem of big business having government in its pockets; for example Ron Paul is a huge supporter of unfettered big business, not realizing they are a driving force behind the wars of choice for profit and power that he blames on Congress. He focuses on the puppet and not the puppet masters.

  20. Re:Cue the consiracy theorists.... by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    what I'm confused about is.. didn't Obama just admit to this the other day?

    or is this different spying?

    wtf?

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  21. 'They contain numerous inaccuracies.' by John+Jorsett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is how bureaucrats try to connote that a report is riddled with errors, falsehoods, and bad conclusions, without actually saying that. They can't say it because it isn't true, so they have to tap dance around that inconvenient fact by saying a report is 'inaccurate'. 'Inaccuracy' could easily refer to misspellings of people's names, dates off by a day, typos, etc. Unless he says exactly what he's talking about, it's reasonable to assume he's just trying to obfuscate.

  22. Loss of trust and legitimacy by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When James R Clapper opens his mouth I have no reason to believe or trust anything he says. He lied in testimony in front of congress and he won't even say what is wrong about the reports because "classified".

    When technology companies like Microsoft tell us they safeguard our data or don't put backdoors into their shit and then lie about participation in spying programs are paying customers expected to do something other than switch to linux?

    What about their foreign customers how are they supposed to trust an american company with perception of an out of control lawless state?

    Secret interpretation of law is corrosive to state legitimacy. Which translates to non-academic consequences in the real world.

    Foreign companies will think twice (US = next Huawei) before trusting US based firms for anything. People will increase their use of information security technology and the result will be negative effects on actual lawful non-puppet judge issued warrants.

    Aggregation of power always leads to corruption. They are inseparable laws of human nature.