Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Other Agencies Clamor For Data NSA Compiles

Posted by samzenpus on from the learning-to-share dept.

schwit1 writes "The National Security Agency's dominant role as the nation's spy warehouse has spurred frequent tensions and turf fights with other federal intelligence agencies that want to use its surveillance tools for their own investigations, officials say. Agencies working to curb drug trafficking, cyberattacks, money laundering, counterfeiting and even copyright infringement complain that their attempts to exploit the security agency's vast resources have often been turned down because their own investigations are not considered a high enough priority, current and former government officials say. Intelligence officials say they have been careful to limit the use ... for fear they could be misused in ways that violate Americans' privacy rights."

40 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Re:No Catfood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I remember when paranoid fantasies were just fantasies.

  2. Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Give them all the data they want, with the single condition that any and all wrongdoing found must be prosecuted. Part of me just wants to watch the chaos.

    1. Re:Fine by bfandreas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they do insist on gathering this data they should
      a) make all gathered data available by request for each individual citizen
      b) disclose who made use of that data and also discolse the reason for it

      This level of transparency would be required to make this anywhere near OK. But their underhanded tactics they use make this very unlikely. They don't spy on US citizens(except by accident) but they do get data from the Brits who it turns out have the legal framework to spy on everyone. NSA financed the GCHQ site in Bude and has lots of staff "liaising" with the GCHQ. Which all is perfectly legal.

      I wonder why there is no bigger outcry in the UK that the main selling point of the GCHQ to the NSA is the relatively lax legal framework in the UK. It is perfeclty legal, yes. But if questions have been asked about if the laws powering this festering dungheap are ok I have totally missed that. And I'm subscribed to The Guardian which would totally pick this one up.

      It seems that the main discussion is happening in Germany and the US. While the biggest culprit, namely the GCHQ, has very little to fear. As always with these leaks, the US reputation isn't as damaged as everybody else's. And I totally buy into the NSA not sharing any data. But I do not buy that FISA courts are actually doing their jobs as this would require blind trust. How should I trust the integrity of secret courts? Their mere existence is a travesty in a democracy.

      This is all so wrong on so many levels...

      Alas, the geeks in the cubicles of the NSA/GCHQ propably don't even understand this outrage. And when you think about it, it is no mean technological feat. They managed to acquire lots of data, store it and search it. On a massive scale. That's cool and scary at the same time.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  3. IRS is next by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 2

    It's only natural.

  4. 2 points by MrLogic17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) " for fear they could be misused in ways that violate Americans' privacy rights"
    The act of spying & collecting this data didn't already pass this threashold?

    2) Every government agency takes the permitted rules and pushes them to the limit & a bit beyond. In no time at all, the Smallville dog catcher's dept will have access to NSA data. "Think of the children - we need to know which houses have mean dogs, and which ones have small children! For their own good!"
    This should be no surprise.

    1. Re:2 points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In spite of all the news, everybody I've worked with at the NSA has been very concerned about privacy and focused on preserving privacy, and generally unhappy about a legislative change that put drug trafficers in the list of people they were allowed to collect against, breaking that (to them) sacred bubble aroudn American citizens.

    2. Re:2 points by boorack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, they don't use this data to curb drug trafficking, money laundering, cyberattacks. And it turned out that only one terrorist plot was POSSIBLY curbed with all this giant spying operation. This is enough to convince me that governments, banksters and corporations around it are using this surveillance to keep themselves in power and control US population regardless of how much fraud and outright crimes will the government do. From the beginning this had nothing to do with safety of ordinary americans and has everything to do with protecting corrupt, criminal US elites from US population. They don't give a crap about our safety or well being - should they care, they wouldn't defund and dismantle local police and fire departments just to ensure their fellow banksters have bigger profits (thanks to bailouts). They built this monster for the same exact reason STASI built its apparatus. Everything this surveillance would do to benefit citizens is regarded as unnecessary cost and we know what corporate aparatchics and their government cronies do with such "excess costs".

    3. Re:2 points by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      As much as I'd like to see the bad guys punished and justice served, there is no justice when you run roughshod over half of the Bill of Rights. The NSA data, IMHO, was not theirs to take in the first place. The use of it by other agencies not only compounds the damages, perhaps exponentiating the damage, but also sets the precedent that we're not protected from the boorishness of illegal search.

      Soon the shakedowns will start. The big campaign contributors, already in control of the legislatures, will help vicariously fund their own "blood" wars.

      Summary: We agree. Mod parent up.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:2 points by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The act of spying & collecting this data didn't already pass this threshold?

      While I tend to agree, I can at least commend the NSA for trying to limit the use of this data where there isn't an overriding purpose.

      The problem is that once databases like these are compiled there will be constant pressure to expand their use. First national security letters are used to find out who is reading bomb-making books at the local library. Later national security letters are used to find out who is reading communist/cryptography/whatever books at the library.

      The next problem is that these are secret databases whose existence isn't generally admitted to in the first place. How do these other agencies even know (prior to Snowden) that this data is out there to begin with? If they were obtaining data from these databases, how would we even find out about it?

      Better to not collect this kind of data in the first place, unless it is in reaction to a specific threat (and if there is a specific threat, you should be able to obtain a warrant which makes it completely legal). When this kind of data is collected, it should only be used for the original intended purpose.

    5. Re:2 points by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "It hasn't actually caught any terrorists!" argument (also applied to the TSA), while tempting, is an error on the part of anti-spying advocates. This is a mistake for two reasons:

      1. It puts the emphasis on the incidental situation, and not the actual violation of rights. So it makes it easy for the opposition to straw-man the civil liberties point of view, for example, that they're arguing based on a waste of money.
      2. The technology may well advance to the point where it does work. If our argument is frequently presented as "it doesn't work," when that changes, the civil liberties cause will take a massive hit to its credibility.

      So, it's better to stick to the real issue, which is that these programs are a violation of peoples rights.

    6. Re:2 points by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's assuming the Government is SMART enough to claim threats "thwarted" due to the data. Consider the current "threat" that has caused extended closures of US Embassies overseas. For all we know, it COULD be 3-4 operatives generating massive "chatter" back and forth on a number of methods and media, forcing a reaction. And then, physically doing. . . nothing. Thus calling the usefullness of data acquired by these means into question. Which was the REAL attack, and it looks to be massively successful. . .

    7. Re: 2 points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the nsa would astroturf too...

    8. Re:2 points by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Or they just considered that if retroactive phone taps start appearing in drug trials, someone is eventually going to notice and start asking where this evidence is coming from.

    9. Re:2 points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, they don't use this data to curb drug trafficking, money laundering, cyberattacks. And it turned out that only one terrorist plot was POSSIBLY curbed with all this giant spying operation. This is enough to convince me that governments, banksters and corporations around it are using this surveillance to keep themselves in power and control US population regardless of how much fraud and outright crimes will the government do. From the beginning this had nothing to do with safety of ordinary americans and has everything to do with protecting corrupt, criminal US elites from US population. They don't give a crap about our safety or well being - should they care, they wouldn't defund and dismantle local police and fire departments just to ensure their fellow banksters have bigger profits (thanks to bailouts). They built this monster for the same exact reason STASI built its apparatus. Everything this surveillance would do to benefit citizens is regarded as unnecessary cost and we know what corporate aparatchics and their government cronies do with such "excess costs".

      I guess the premise of your answer just melted ;)

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/dea-surveillance-cover-up_n_3706207.html

      Next stop: IP / Copyright enforcement. Oh wait, you can ask Kim DotCom about how that went.

      Turns out criminals aren't the only people who thinks doing it the illegal way is an easier way to get the job done / get rich.

    10. Re:2 points by click2005 · · Score: 2

      The copyright industry just weren't offering to pay enough for the data.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    11. Re:2 points by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I don't necessarily care about how honest the people in the offices are *today*. Ask yourself just how great is the potential for abuse, and just how appealing a target will that make for the corrupt? Whether they pursue the position for access to the power, or simply corrupt existing officials via bribes, blackmail, etc. doesn't matter - just imagine the success the "New Tyranny Party" could have with access to that kind of information about all their political rivals (how many politicians do you suppose *don't* have career-ending skeletons in their closet?), and continuous surveillance and elimination of anyone who might head a resistance movement, *before* that movement gets enough momentum to enter the popular consciousness.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:2 points by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2

      Officials have stated (although you never see this in the headlines) that the closures were not due to ANY NEW INTELLIGENCE COLLECTED. This is a pure scare tactic by the government in response to changing public opinion. Of course nothing will happen, or maybe something will. It's a win-win for the government either way because they can either claim to have stopped it and protected Americans or claim that we need more surveillance.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  5. Who is being kept safe? by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right across the free world we're told this these giant databases are there to keep us safe.

    The question is more who is being kept safe who. Is the purpose of these databases to protect me or protect the politicians? Is to protect me or big business? Is it to protect my right to process or restrict it?

    In my own country, William Hague said that it was unthinkable that GCHQ would be operating outside of the law. The problem is I don't believe you!

    Practically every time the government has secrecy it abuses that power to its own ends. This is just the nature of power held in secret with a lack of transparency. The entire span of human history shows that kind of power is hugely destructive.

    The cure is worse than the disease here. Honestly, I'd rather have more terrorist attacks that having my privacy systematically shredded for the greater good. All terrorists can ever do is kill people. It takes a government to kill a society.

    1. Re:Who is being kept safe? by Totenglocke · · Score: 2

      Who is being kept safe? Politicians and their thugs. That's who.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:Who is being kept safe? by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      Right across the free world we're told this these giant databases are there to keep us safe.

      The question is more who is being kept safe

      Sadly, your view is optimistic. It's not "who" that's being kept safe, but "what". And the answer is "Capital".

      There has never been a working economic system that had the general populace as its priority. Capitalism is most certainly not an exception.

      The simple truth is that the mentioned information has a large cost, and agencies (at least theoretically) oriented to the protection of the citizens are not a good investment.

      Citizens are simply not valuable enough to spend the high cost of these surveillance tools in their protection.

    3. Re:Who is being kept safe? by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      Who is being kept safe? Politicians and their thugs. That's who.

      Politicians are puppets. Well paid puppets, but puppets after all.

      Politicians are being watched too; probably even more than simple citizens. You wouldn't want your puppets to act under no surveillance.

    4. Re:Who is being kept safe? by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Practically every time the government has secrecy it abuses that power to its own ends.

      Fortunately for the feudal aristocracy, the serfs tend to have very short attention spans...

  6. Re:Other Agencies Clamor For Data *That* NSA Compi by auric_dude · · Score: 2

    One Compile To Rule Them and in the darkness bind them.

  7. more than clamouring, apparently by fche · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-directs-agents-cover-program-used-investigate-091643729.html

  8. Strange by MTEK · · Score: 2

    for fear they could be misused in ways that violate Americans' privacy rights.

    But..but.. the people asking are professionally trained law enforcement officials. What's the problem?

  9. Re:No Catfood by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    Of course! Political parties won't clamor for the data ever.

  10. Re:No Catfood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The scary part is that it turned out that the insane conspiracy nutjobs had a more realistic view of the world than you.

  11. DEA already gets the data by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The DEA is getting the data and then falsifying the source of the data. And not telling the court or anyone about it. To protect national security is one thing, but to conduct non-national security operations using the data seems to me to be a blatant violation of the constitution.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:DEA already gets the data by Xest · · Score: 2

      This doesn't surprise me. In the last decade we've had numerous stories of people's houses being raided or arrested or charged because of something they've said on Twitter and it's always made me a bit suspicious that these people got caught given they had only a handful of followers they knew closely.

      Take the Doncaster airport guy in the UK who made a joke about blowing it up if the delays weren't sorted in 7 days or whatever - the chance of one of those few tens of people he had following him taking it seriously and reporting it to the police is probably about zero. In reality I suspect an NSA/GCHQ automated monitoring program picked it up and forwarded it to the police as a threat. The same goes for people who have flown to the US only to be investigated by border security for jokes they've made on Twitter - that shit doesn't just coincidentally get stumbled across in the pool of billions of tweets, it's being monitored and reported to all these agencies automatically, presumably through "anonymous tip off" - aka an NSA/GCHQ computer.

    2. Re:DEA already gets the data by DexterIsADog · · Score: 2

      I think it's more likely you've fallen victim to the phenomenon of unrealistic view of probabilities, like people who fear terrorism but drive like idiots, which is much more likely to kill them.

      Imagine all the millions of asshats who use Twitter every day. They probably generate tens of thousands of tweets similar to the UK example you cited, but you don't read about tens of thousands of similar arrests every day, do you?

      So, you think the odds are "probably about zero", so let's say *only* ten thousand asshat tweets are generated every day, and the chance that the twits' "only a handful of followers" took it seriously was one in ten thousand - viola, there's one per day.

      No need to posit nefarious use of surveillance there. Train your sights on the more likely abuses - high profile criminal cases, "terror cell plots unmasked", and more importantly, usage of data to make the rich richer. That's where the problem actually lies.

    3. Re:DEA already gets the data by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To protect national security is one thing, but to conduct non-national security operations using the data seems to me to be a blatant violation of the constitution.

      Except that part of the reason for the Bill of Rights is specifically to protect the citizens from having the government infringe on their rights for "national security" reasons. Saying it's for "national security" doesn't make it better, really.

      What the founders feared, what the Bill of Rights was intended to be a protection against, was an oppressive government using its power to subdue people who opposed the government. So the First Amendment is not saying, "You have the freedom to express yourself artistically," so much as, "You have the freedom to speak out *against the government*." The Second Amendment is not saying, "You're allowed to have guns for hunting purposes," as much as, "You have the right to have military weapons *to protect yourself from the government*." And the 4th Amendment was not really focused on preventing overzealous police officers as much as it was about preventing the government from going after dissidents, rifling through their lives, looking for a pretext to arrest them.

      It's really all about protecting people from the danger of a government using "national security" as a pretext for shutting down dissent. This NSA stuff is *exactly* what the founding fathers were worried about.

  12. It's a misuse all right by arth1 · · Score: 2

    ... for fear they could be misused in ways that violate Americans' privacy rights.

    As opposed to misused in ways that doesn't violate Americans' privacy rights?

  13. Al Qaeda scare an ad for NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the new Al Qaeda scare, U.S. still on edge in face of uncovered terror plot, just manipulation to scare people into accepting NSA and other "security" agencies doing anything they like?

    1. Re:Al Qaeda scare an ad for NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is the Pope Catholic?

    2. Re:Al Qaeda scare an ad for NSA? by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2

      I read in the Wallstreet Journal this morning (which my father-in-law reads) that "Washington Officials say this move is not an indication that there is new intelligence information that has been collected" Meaning: Yes, it absolutely is a manufactured scare tactic.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    3. Re:Al Qaeda scare an ad for NSA? by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2
      I read the same thing and to me the fact that they are invoking 9/11 is just to instill greater fear throughout the populace. Remember V for Vendetta? The public opinion of the government begins to change so the government tries to remind the populace that it needs the government by planting scary news stories and invoking the St. Mary's virus. This is

      THE

      EXACT

      SAME

      THING

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    4. Re:Al Qaeda scare an ad for NSA? by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Checking the "post anonymously" box results in the moderation going away silently. You have to completely log out.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Al Qaeda scare an ad for NSA? by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 2

      ...and/or (2) we noticed something special prior to 9/11 but, well, didn't do enough about it.

      They knew all sorts of things. They knew a plot would likely unfold soon, involving massive casualties. They'd been warned about strikes using airplanes, and that Jihadis were in the US, and that four were receiving flight training.

      And precisely nothing was done. They didn't even warn the airlines.

      One way or another, any weirdness surrounding 9/11 is dead and buried at this point. Whether random terrorism, domestic false flag, or some hybrid of the two (a Bush - Saudi - Bin Ladin 'understanding'), there is likely no remaining information that will ever be dislodged to 'resolve' the issue for anyone who remains unconvinced one way or another. What we do know, with absolute certainty, was that 9/11 was a godsend for US imperialism. Writing in 2000 on the subject of revitalizing the US military to put it back on a war footing, with a focus on a 'two-war capability' (i.e., the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously), the Project for the New American Century report Rebuilding America's Defenses notes that: (pp. 51)

      ... the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

      A range of high level members of the Bush administration were members or signatories of the PNAC.

      So regardless of the extent to which (1) is true in the parent posting, (2) is definitely the case. And if you are willing to look for causality or intention in that stubborn inaction, you do not have to look far – though you should be prepared for an onslaught of "omg lolz conspiracy theory!" declamations to put closure on any honest discussion of the incentives, invested parties, and policy outcomes.

  14. Lied about Why by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 2

    "careful to limit the use ... for fear they could be misused in ways that violate Americans' privacy rights."

    Nonsense. The NSA restrict access for exactly the same reason as access to Ultra was restricted in Wrld War II. "If the enemy [the US public] knew we are reading their signals, they would take steps to prevent us continuing".

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  15. Re:No Catfood by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The scariest part is that most of "insane conspiracy nutjobs" thought the reality was better than it actually was.