Slashdot Mirror
US Senators: NSA Lies In Fact Sheets
Bruce66423 writes "The Guardian reports that two U.S. senators have written to the NSA telling it to amend its 702 provisions fact sheet (PDF) which, they claim, contains inaccuracies. However they can't actually say HOW they are inaccurate, because they would be compromising classified information. So the U.S. government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!"
From the letter: "In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans' privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are." But they go on to say "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."
Do politicians follow the law?
No good deed goes unpunished.
I'd rather they actually put a stop to it, but I guess we have to be happy that at least some senators are willing to address lies by the government.
"NSA Lies"
FTFY
I can't decipher how sad or pathetic this actually is.
It is important not to simply wonder on this. After all, in a way or another some had seen it commming. Now that the brown pieces have hit the rotating blades, the real issue is how to prevent this from happening in the future.
The first thing that comes to mind is the word "Legislation". But then again, it is exactly that what gave rise to this situation in the first place.
"I have a million ideas. They all point to certain death" - Marvin
However they can't actually say HOW they are inaccurate, because they would be compromising classified information.
diff those documents before and after amendment, see the classified information. I don't know if the senators are dumb or being subtly clever.
Politicians pointing out that the NSA lies about facts, and they let them know. They should go to the people who are in charge of the NSA and let them know, silly politicians.
Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
How long before Congress simply states "We aren't in charge anymore."?
I'm guessing when the "fact sheet" is updated it would only be to include whatever lies the current administration wants them to tell.
The game is rigged, folks. There isn't going to be any change unless YOU MAKE IT.
My gut says this is plausible, but we don't really know - it's never been tried.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
If they can't show the issues with it due to national security reasons would we be able to see a correctly amended version of the document? It seems odd to point out issues with a public document but not be able to point out what is wrong.
If the document is corrected how will we know if its a true and accurate portrayal of the state of affairs? It seems to me that information will be held back, for national security reasons, and as such the document is bound to be inaccurate even if not deliberately misleading.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Obama stated that "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate. And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up. And if in fact there was - there were abuses taking place, presumably, those members of Congress could raise those issues very aggressively. They're empowered to do so."
But the only place Congress is legally permitted to speak up is in a classified hearing.. This means it's not just that members of Congress can't publicly air complaints about the programs they can't even acknowledge they exist.
"So the [put any country's name here] government uses taxpayer money to lie to the people... there's a surprise!"
Since when did /. become an aggregate of the Daily Show? News for nerds... stuff that matters?
Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings
What's the goal -- having a police state? There NO place for secret courts and secret Congressional hearings in a free society.
The U.S. government lies, NSA lies, CIA lies, FBI lies, DEA lies, NBC lies, ABC lies, Fox lies...
Blah blah blah...
I think we actually need an NID now. Not the plot device, but a real civilian oversight agency. The real question is how do we staff it without getting people just as corrupt as the rest of the government?
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Republican Senators, right? What do I win?
As these secret surveillance laws unravell, more people are coming forward. This time, in the UK, an undercover officer who was made to spy on protest groups, (protesting police killings) steps forward:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/24/metropolitan-police-spying-undercover-officers
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
but archive.org has a copy -- http://web.archive.org/web/20130625004125/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/press_releases/section_702_protections.pdf
"I could tell you what is wrong, but then I'd have to kill you."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I can assure them with confidence that the NSA knows which rock they live under.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
...and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans.
Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings,
These last two statements are in direct opposition to one another. They are mutually exclusive. Pick one. And by pick one I mean the former.
The senators are saying: "Snowden is right. You're doing completely illegal things, and you know it, and you lied about it. Fix yo sh*t."
They can't SAY that, of course, because that would upset the party line of "Snowden is a horrible traitor and must be hanged in the public square." If Congress is shocked by and acting on his revelations, they're endorsing that his disclosure was a necessary thing.
They can't even say "Your document is wrong because it doesn't mention the stuff you're doing with PRISM," because the media can put two and two together and realize they're basing that on Snowden's opinion.
The war on terror must take a back seat to the war on leakers.
Essentially the constitution means nothing if they say the magic words "National Security". You think you have rights sorry we think you are a threat to "National Security" we can lock you up. No evidence. No judge. No jury. No Press. No rules apply to us we are protecting "National Security". This is the same logic every dictatorship has used throughout history. How big a threat is Al Qaeda and the Talaban really? In all their attacks on the US through out all history they have killed 4400+/- people. And 4488+/- of our troops in their country. So less than 10,000 US deaths due to Al Qaeda and the Talaban over the last 17 years give or take depending on when you say Al Qaeda formed. So the average death tole is 588 US citizens per year due to Al Qaeda and the Talaban actions. How does this compare to other threats to "National Security" From the CDC Report on death statics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf This ranks right up there with accidental deaths from firearms and a bad case of the flu. Don't get me wrong. I believe those responsible for acts of violence should be punished and a military response to 911 was the right thing to do. When you look at the actual impact based on the death toll the security of our country was not and has never been at stake. I do not feel less fearful today or more free today. I am much more fearful of loosing my rights and freedoms to actions of our government than I am to those of Al Qaeda, the Talaban and terrorism in general.
Step 1 when you have a leak. Discredit the source.
the NSA knows they need to lie through their teeth hard to discredit this as fast as possible and hope that the bulk of the population believes them.
Step 2 is demonize the source in the eyes of the people. That one is currently underway.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans.
Non-Americans and Permanent Residents, though, fuck em. We actually rewrote the Constitution a while back replacing "the People" with "Citizens". But that's classified.
Fact sheets, I don't think that means what you think it means
So... up until this NSA/Snowden incident, I believed the media was incompetent. Not malicious... just out to make a buck and real news was expensive to do research on. But now it's clear. The coverage on this entire affair by CNN, CBS, NBC, etc... is flat out propaganda. There is no question that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. It is, without a doubt, a violation of our rights. Snowden really is a political activist. The US would be applauding such behavior of a Chinese citizen, and we would provide them asylum in a heartbeat. The presidents that allowed this to continue (Bush and Obama) should be charged in criminal court for this. Obama, at the very least should be impeached. The courts involved, the members of congress that were aware, they should all lose their offices at the very least. The NSA should be shut down permanently. We still have a chance to save the republic... but it's a small one. Everyone in this country needs to vote 3rd party going forward. If you vote R or D in any election in the future, you're a traitor to your country and we should all be ashamed of you.
"We believe the US government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans."
Terrorism is an ill defined concept, legally speaking. This still allows them to strip the rights away from any US citizen they deem to be a terrorist.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Internal Server Error - Read
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Reference #3.767ffea5.1372167766.16d1687b
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
You fucking idiots haven't looked at history from 150 years ago. We've got nothing on eastern kentucky in the late 1800's for fighting along party lines.
" contains inaccuracies" does not mean 'lies'.
Also, I can'[t help but notice that it]s people in the government that are shedding light on this issue.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans' privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are." But they go on to say "We appreciate your attention to this matter. We believe that the U.S. government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists without compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as well."
This is how this got started to begin with, leave it up to the politicians to be completely ding bats.
You see when someone breaks the law and is convicted by their peers in open court, they are then a criminal.
The only indeterminate bit is "innocent unless proven guilty" bit. But it is REAL simple to decide who a criminal is. Millions of people do that professionally each day.
Break the law == Criminal
Blow up civilians == Terrorist (unless it was collateral damage, or if you attack our military installations, or you were hit by gunfire deliberately by us, or...)
"Do you really believe that in the modern world today that a republic of 300,000,000 people will have no secrets that have to be maintained, and that you personally should have access to everything at your whim"
Yes.
This is required for a democracy: you need to be informed before you can make the informed choice.
Or do you think that crimes committed by government agencies *must* be kept secret, else there can be no secrets for governments?
Please, Mister, I know I'm just a foreigner, one border away from you, but could I please have some rights too?
Maybe "I don't spy on you, you don't spy on me"?
Or "I don't strong arm your businesses/government and you don't strong arm mine?"
Or "I won't put pipelines across your pristine wilderness, and you don't put pipelines across mine?"
Alas, the rest of the world is relegated to 3rd class citizens.
We believe that the [...] government should have broad authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage, and that it is possible to aggressively pursue terrorists
I am in agreement with that statement, as long as the government never gets do define the meaning of "terrorism", "espionage" and "terrorists".
Those of you who experienced the Red Scare will understand my sentiment.
You are a real machine, man.. Dig it
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
OK, let's say these senators are correct and the document has fallacies.
And they say they cannot say what the fallacies are because it would release classified information?
WELL NOW THE NSA CANNOT CORRECT THE DOCUMENT OR SOMEONE WHO KNOWS 'diff' CAN FIGURE OUT THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
The senators should not have made this public. It is almost as if they did release classified information. Are they that stupid? Or are they that smart?
Its not immoral. He swore an oath for his security clearance. An oath like the president or any soldier. Its first clause to to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of America. The last is to perform the duties of his position.
He was placed in the position where he could not simultaneously fulfill both parts of the oath. No matter what he did, he would be breaking part of it. So he sided with the constitution and the American people, and I think that makes him a hero.
This is in response to everyone who keeps dropping 'constitution' in here.
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
Read the EFF's opinion on reasonable expectation of privacy. I bolded stuff for my own amusement.
The EFF must be furious that only now people are reacting to something they have been trying to tell you, because you all seem to be under the impression something was taken away rather than not ever protected in the first place.
A big question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is "reasonable" and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have "knowingly exposed" something to another person or to the public at large.
You may "knowingly expose" a lot more than you really know or intend. Most information a third party collects — such as your insurance records, credit records, bank records, travel records, library records, phone records and even the records your grocery store keeps when you use your "loyalty" card to get discounts — was given freely to them by you, and is probably not protected by the Fourth Amendment under current law.
Records stored by others. As the Supreme Court has stated, "The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed." This means that you will often have no Fourth Amendment protection in the records that others keep about you, because most information that a third party will have about you was either given freely to them by you, thus knowingly exposed, or was collected from other, public sources. It doesn't necessarily matter if you thought you were handing over the information in confidence, or if you thought the information was only going to be used for a particular purpose.
Therefore it is important to pay close attention to the kinds of information about you and your organization’s activities that you reveal to third parties, and work to reduce the amount of private information you leave behind when you go about your daily business.
Captcha is 'hilarity' ROFLMAOx100
you'd have to be an idiot to believe anything published by any spy agency: the CIA, the NSA, the KGB, the IRS, etc.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Section 702
Title VII, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), “Procedures for
Targeting Certain Persons Outside the United States Other Than United States Persons” (50
U.S.C. sec. 1881a)
This authority allows only the targeting, for foreign intelligence purposes, of
communications of foreign persons who are located abroad.
The government may not target any U.S. person anywhere in the world under this
authority, nor may it target a person outside of the U.S. if the purpose is to acquire
information from a particular, known person inside the U.S.
Under this authority, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court annually reviews
“certifications” jointly submitted by the U.S. Attorney General and Director of National
Intelligence.
These certifications define the categories of foreign actors that may be appropriately
targeted, and by law, must include specific targeting and minimization procedures adopted
by the Attorney General in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and
approved by the Court as consistent with the law and 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
There must be a valid, documented foreign intelligence purpose, such as counterterrorism,
for each use of this authority. All targeting decisions must be documented in advance.
The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct
on-site reviews of targeting, minimization, and dissemination decisions at least every 60
days.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court must approve the targeting and minimization
procedures, which helps ensure the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
These procedures require that the acquisition of information is conducted, to the greatest
extent reasonably feasible, to minimize the acquisition of information not relevant to the
authorized foreign intelligence purpose.
Any inadvertently acquired communication of or concerning a U.S. person must be
promptly destroyed if it is neither relevant to the authorized purpose nor evidence of a
crime.
If a target who was reasonably believed to be a non-U.S. person outside of the U.S. either
enters the U.S. or was in fact a U.S. person at the time of acquisition, targeting must be
immediately terminated.
Any information collected after a foreign target enters the U.S. –or prior to a discovery that
any target erroneously believed to be foreign was in fact a U.S. person– must be promptly
destroyed unless that information meets specific, limited criteria approved by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The dissemination of any information about U.S. persons is expressly prohibited unless it is
necessary to understand foreign intelligence or assess its importance; is evidence of a
crime; or indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The FISC rules of procedure require immediate reporting of any compliance incident. In
addition, the government reports quarterly to the FISC regarding any compliance issues that
have arisen during the reporting period, including updates of previously reported incidents.
The Department of Justice and Office of the Director of National Intelligence provide a semiannual
assessment to the Court and Congress assessing compliance with the targeting and
minimization procedures. In addition, the Department of Justice provides semi-annual
reports to the Court and Congress concerning implementation of Section 702.
An annual Inspector General assessment is provided to Congress, reporting on compliance
with procedural requirements, the number of disseminations relating to U.S. persons, and
the number of targets later found to be located inside the U.S.
Read it and weep --- when you see the revised version, you can calculate the delta, and find out what the REAL lies are they've been telling all along ...
And stay out of our domestic affairs, you snivelling Guardian douchebags from across the Pond.
-- Jimtown Kelly
Politicians are totally compromised by agreeing to secret briefings and by accepting that they are subject to prosecution for revealing information in the House or Senate. Sitting federal representatives should be immune from prosecution for anything sad in the House or Senate, as is the norm in other democratic political systems. Allowing oneself to be silenced is a complete dereliction of duty. Shame on you all.