Slashdot Mirror


NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of Times Per Year, Audit Finds

NettiWelho writes "The Washington Post reports: The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents. Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by law and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls."

42 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. 3 frightening words by puddingebola · · Score: 4, Insightful

    broad new powers

    1. Re:3 frightening words by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Funny

      But...but...President Obama and the NSA chief assured us that abuses don't happen and that there's plenty of oversight to stop them. So surely the Washington Post MUST be mistaken!

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:3 frightening words by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it time to say "We told you fuckers."?

      Don't worry. The next time you see it coming because you understand this concept of a "track record" or have read a little history, you'll still be called a tin-foil hatter.

      There are large numbers of people who never really grew up emotionally and are unable to cope with reality despite possibly having high intelligence. It's not that they have any solid reason to doubt you (in fact it's the opposite if they bothered to look). It's that they want so badly to believe their government is not out-of-control that they're personally offended you would suggest otherwise. Of course anything that offends them must be wrong, right?

      This is actually how the average person perceives reality. Yes it's scary. It's why so little effort is put towards prevention.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:3 frightening words by fizzer06 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

      George Washington

    4. Re:3 frightening words by causality · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

      George Washington

      It's not just government itself. The phenomenon I described above also explains why issues that should be factual/scientific are instead political. I'll give an example: marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Schedule I means "no medical use". Yet we have doctors prescribing it and patients using it who report relief of symptoms. We have lots of laws like this which directly contradict the available facts. It's because so many people aren't concerned with facts. They are concerned with their feelings, their fears, and with what offends them.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:3 frightening words by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "no abuse and plenty of oversight"

      "the check is in the mail"

      I'll respect you in the morning"

      Need I go on ??? After all, they ARE from the Government, and here to help. . . .

    6. Re:3 frightening words by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is it time to say "We told you fuckers."?

      I informed you thusly! I so informed you thusly.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    7. Re:3 frightening words by Entropius · · Score: 4, Informative

      Schedule I drugs are not drugs with no medical use.

      Schedule I drugs are drugs that a particular government organization has *decided* have no medical use. This isn't a scientific claim; it's a political one.

      The most blatant example is heroin, which is Schedule I in the USA but used in much the same way as morphine in the UK.

    8. Re: 3 frightening words by number6x · · Score: 5, Interesting

      2008? I didn't know Obama POTUS then.

      Well...

      If the 'Obama'-recession started in 2007, and the 'Obama'-phone program started in 1984, he must have been president in 2008!

      2008, 2007, 1984 What party were those presidents from? Oh yeah, that 'less government' party that keeps giving us more government.

      Don't listen to what politicians say to you, look at what they actually do. Democrats spend too much money and Republicans spend even more.

    9. Re: 3 frightening words by number6x · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wow!

      Moderated as a troll.

      I re-read the comment and couldn't find one thing that was trollish. Extremely sarcastic, but not troll-ish.

      Of course Obama is being blamed for executive orders given in 2008 (he didn't take office until January 2009), just as he is blamed for the 2007 recession (the so called 'Obama' recession), and just as he is blamed for the 1984 phone give away program (expanded from land lines to wireless in 2008*) the so-called 'Obama'-phones. It doesn't matter who did it or when it happens, for some people it will always be Obama's fault, just as for others everything wrong with the world from 2001 through 2008 was always Dick Cheney's fault.

      Facts don't matter to some people if it disagrees with their opinions, they have their villians and must blame their villians for all wrongs. As others have pointed out above. This is exactly the kind of thinking that gets in the way of making informed choices for better government.

      Its also probably why I was moderated 'troll'. I must have stepped on someone's precious opinions.

      * By the way, Clinton increased the lifeline phone program in 1996 as well, so it isn't just the one party that gives us too much governement, sometimes the Democrats spend too much as well;)

    10. Re:3 frightening words by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ironically fear of abusers getting drugs guides things rather than legitimate, safe uses.

      There are speed-like weight loss drugs that are safe and effective and used in many oyher countries. They are illegal in the US because addicts might illegally get ahold of them.

      That's right. You can't get it because some addict might figure out a black market for it. I..e completely severed from your medical use.

      Thanks for deciding that on our behalf. :( That our lives are worth less in legitimate use than an addict's through illegitimate.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re: 3 frightening words by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1916 US troops occupy the Dominican Republic

      1917 US enters WW1

      1941 The US enters WW2

      1950 The US Invades Korea

      1961 US invades the Bay of Pigs

      1965 US combat troops enter Vietnam

      What party were those presidents from? Oh yeah, the peace loving party. What party was the only president to ever detonate nuclear bombs against another country from?

      Republicans are hawks, Democrats enter us in some of the biggest wars.

      Republicans are supposed to be for family values, but how many get caught in extramarital affairs?

      Democrats want to help the minorities. But almost the entire party fought the civil rights movement.

      Don't listen to what any politician says. I'm starting to think that more often than not they will do(or have done) the exact opposite of what they tell you.

    12. Re: 3 frightening words by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But almost the entire party fought the civil rights movement.

      There was an ideological transition that occurred because of this. Anyone against the civil rights movement fled the Democratic party, drawn to the Republicans by Nixon's Southern strategy of courting bible belt racists. It's disingenuous to apply contemporary labels across vast periods of history. Names and labels change. This is the same reason why it's fallacious for contemporary Republicans to claim to be the party of Lincoln. If Lincoln were alive today, it's not safe to say he'd be a Democrat, but he'd certainly NOT be a Republican.

      I should note I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I vote Green Party.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  2. Well finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now congress HAS to do something about it!

    1. Re:Well finally by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now congress HAS to do something about it!

      Yeah. They're going to increase the NSA budget so they can implement an internal office of surveillance review or something like that.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    2. Re:Well finally by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't worry, they're on it! I'm sure they've already got broad bipartisan support for passing a bill imposing harsher penalties on leakers and countries who shelter them.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    3. Re:Well finally by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm glad congress doesn't plan nuclear plants. Their solution for a warning light popping up would certainly be to remove the bulb.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. so basically, what we knew by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We (the people) gave them a little power, and they grossly over stepped the bounds.

    Thank God Snowden exposed the NSA programs so that now they are finally being scrutinized.

    The question left is, what are we(the people) going to do about it?

    I vote for dissolving the NSA and DoHS.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:so basically, what we knew by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question left is, what are we(the people) going to do about it?

      Next time, they'll vote for Kodos instead.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:so basically, what we knew by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We (the people) gave them a little power, and they grossly over stepped the bounds.

      I don't think it is useful to exaggerate. We don't have any evidence (yet) of malicious intent - almost all of the stuff in this report was just sloppiness because nobody was there to keep them in line. It isn't like they were digging up dirt on political candidates in order to sway elections or blackmailing the leaders of the Occupy movement to make them back off.

      On the flip-side it is useful to note that this was an internal report - pretty much guaranteed not to turn up anything heinous because that would be career suicide for the investigators who report to the same command-structure they are investigating. So the relatively benign level of abuse is not proof that really bad shit has not happened, it just wouldn't be in this report if it did happen.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:so basically, what we knew by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't like they were digging up dirt on political candidates in order to sway elections or blackmailing the leaders of the Occupy movement to make them back off.

      no but we DO know that the IRS was abusing political opponants, damn near everything that we have been told has been a lie since obama took office (and before he did to be clear) I dont know how you or anyone can still say things like "well we dont know...." we know enough to know they lied, about ALOT. I feel that we have only just begun to find the truth in this administration.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:so basically, what we knew by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Americans seem too easily distracted to really do much more than complain.

      Habeas corpus? Gone. Being spied on in clear violation of the 4th Amendment? No problem. Invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the events of 911? Bring it on. Grant China entry to the WTO, and in the end, loose millions of American job to the PRC? Hey, that's just "business."

      It doesn't really matter if the Man In Office is Baby Bush, the Blue Dress Stainer, or Obama. In-action on the part of We The People tells the people in power everything they ever wanted to hear. They can get way with anything and no meaningful action against them will be taken. Never.

      The question left is, what are we(the people) going to do about it?

      It is a very serious question. At what point do westerners say enough is enough and overthrow governments, or at the very least hold people accountable and arrest them?

    5. Re:so basically, what we knew by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of the liberal groups were already established, so 90% of the organizations applying were of one political persuasion. Further it's pretty clear they were trying to skirt the rules, and didn't have the institutional memory to know how to do it right.

  4. Brazil by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone else reminded of the Tuttle/Buttle debacle in Brazil?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  5. Re:So what? by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they violated the law, lock them up.

    Then again, they probably have enough blackmail on the congress critters to keep their program hush hush.

  6. Re:So what? by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I doubt that. If the scandal continues to grow, as it looks likely to, these people will not have a lot to add to what is already known.

    No, the main hurdles to neutering or disbanding the NSA are the strategic goals it serves, namely profiling of the population down to individual level, the intended chilling effects that come with blanket surveillance, and possibly a critical supporting role in establishing a totalitarian system. Being able to get rid of "undesirables" by tipping of law-enforcement (and these days it is almost impossible not to do something illegal when being online in the US) is also highly desirable. In addition, results from economic espionage must pay for a significant part of its operational budget.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  7. Breaking down the penalty by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    2776 for one year = 27,760,000 USD fines. Although this sort of mass scale violation should be considered a larger crime.
    2776 with five years per violation is 13,880 years of jail time.

    However consider more closely that these errors likely affect thousands to tens or even hundreds of thousands citizens privacy. instead of looking at all information from Egypt they looked at all of the communications for Washington DC. Extrapolating those numbers out to the reality of how much private information and how many people were illegally spied upon by the NSA and you can safely say this would bankrupt the executive branch pretty quickly.

  8. Re:SURPRISE! by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just walk in the street... most of them will be surprised that you tell that, and then they go back to their normal lives, forgetting about this. Even if worried, the next time Obama shows up and tell them to relax that everything is fine and give fake promises they will accept that without discussion, not doing anything against it, and surely keep voting for the same party as before, that whichever it was won't do anything against this, and a lot towards getting more power/funds to this.

  9. One Good Federal Prosecutor by some+old+guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the day, all it took was one honest U.S. Attorney to see something like this and get a grand jury to indict the culpable officials, acting independently of corruption from above. Hell, a good lawyer could probably make a grand jury case for a RICO indictment against the whole administration.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  10. Re:Take a breath, get some perspective. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The WP broke it down for you. 2776 cases includes incidence over 4 years. Last year there were 900-odd total including 195 FISA act violations and roughly 700 violations of executive orders. Of the FISA act violations: they break it down further:

    • 60 operator errors
    • 39 did not follow standard operating procedure (no news whether or not willful)
    • 21 typographical errors or overly broad search terms
    • 3 training issues
    • 67 computer errors due to failure to recognize roaming phones
    • 5 other system errors

    This is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to deprive you of your rights. It's evidence of people failing to do things properly.

    I figure to come up with that many errors, there must have been several thousand searches per year that were done as intended and according to the law. If they were always ignoring the law, that means the NSA would hardly be searching anything. If they were 99.9% in compliance, there would be about 900,000 searches to get about 900 errors. I think both of those scenarios are implausible. Nobody believes there are just a couple thousand searches per year and I doubt the NSA is good enough and careful enough to get 99.9% compliance. At the very limit of plausibility, they are not listening to all your phone calls.

    My bad. Those 900 or so errors were for one quarter. The whole year is 2776, with 2012Q1 being the worst. Also, the trend is increasing.

  11. clever by Triv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The findings conveniently move the goalposts - it implies that the issue is that the spying is being done incorrectly, not that it's being done at all; if it were done "correctly" we would never know, which was the NSA's original win condition.

    Yep. We're fucked.

  12. Re:Take a breath, get some perspective. by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you take a small subset, bout 20%, and because it *lists* personnel mistakes you assume that a lie agency is telling the truth, then with that assumption you say all is ok, while neglecting the other 80% of the cases?

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  13. Re:Take a breath, get some perspective. by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whether it is deliberate or through incompetence is irrelevant. The NSA is still depriving US citizens of their rights on a frighteningly large scale. In addition, the director lied directly to Congress while under inquiry. Nothing is happening to the agency or its members as a result. There's plenty of reason to be upset.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  14. Re:Take a breath, get some perspective. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, in other words, my data is either in the hands of immoral or incompetent people.

    Gee, I feel safer already.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Re:SURPRISE! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course they will. For a very simple reason, they have more pressing problems. They have a recession to deal with, many are busy trying to make ends meet or at least get by somehow. People don't tend to care about freedom a lot if food&shelter are on their "to be worried about" list.

    Why do you think we do everything to prolong that recession for as long as we possibly can? Think back to the 60s and realize what happens when people have time to worry about a crappy government.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. One article I actually read, and now wish I hadn't by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

    A few interesting tidbits to share...

    1) The documents reports 2776 violations of American privacy in just the 12 months ending in May 2012. Oh, and that's only for their Fort Meade data center and a few others in D.C. area, rather than for all of their data centers across the U.S.. They acknowledge the number would be significantly higher if it included all of them. Oh, and those are the number of incidents that occurred, not the number of Americans who were violated in each incident, which is actually a much higher number but isn't reported.

    2) They quadrupled their oversight staff after a series of significant violations in 2009. And the results? Between 2011 and 2012, the number of infractions nearly doubled. Not halved, doubled.

    3) They accidentally collected a "large number" of calls for people in Washington D.C. when there was a mixup between the international code for Egypt (20) and the area code for D.C. (202). No disclosure on what they meant by "large number", but considering the severity of other infractions, it has to be pretty large.

    4) They didn't report the Egypt/D.C. mixup to the organization that oversees/audits them, nor to Congress or anyone else outside the agency, because it was deemed irrelevant to any of them. It was deemed irrelevant since "there were no defects to report", to quote a March 2013 report on the issue.

    5) "Incidental" information on Americans that is collected when targeting foreigners is regularly allowed to enter their database and is freely searchable from then on. They don't count these as violations, nor do they report them, and they are apparently pervasive under their current way of doing things.

    6) In one violation, they hijacked a fiber line going through the U.S. and temporarily held onto all data going through it so that they could process it. This went on for several months before the FISC ruled that what they were doing was a violation of the 4th Amendment since they were incapable of filtering out the communication of American citizens. FOIA requests have been submitted for the ruling, but the Obama administration is apparently working to block the requests.

    Geez. After reading something like this, I can see why no one around here reads the articles. They're way too depressing.

  17. Re:Take a breath, get some perspective. by JWW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep. Us citizens do not get a pass if we "accidentally" break the law. The NSA should not get one either. Plus their definition of "accidentally" is pretty lame and not really that far removed from intentional.

  18. Sen. Dianne Feinstein by PraiseBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is a person who was surprised by the audit results and had not seen them: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Head of the Senate Intelligence committee, directly in charge of congressional oversight of the NSA.

  19. Re:Take a breath, get some perspective. by Bodhammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

    Please sheeple, the above is not that hard to understand what the intent was of this. The contortions of logic to justify FISA and the Patriot Act are ridiculous. Call, write, and go scream in person at your congress critter. We must have our republic back!

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  20. Re:Take a breath, get some perspective. by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yep. Us citizens do not get a pass if we "accidentally" break the law. The NSA should not get one either. Plus their definition of "accidentally" is pretty lame and not really that far removed from intentional.

    Occidental.. we meant to say all our spying was 'occidental'!!

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  21. Re:Cash for Clunkers? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is a government subsidized tradein for a new car destroying wealth? Seem more like aid in purchasing a capital good to me.

    It wasn't the subsidy or the new car that destroyed capital, it was all the strings (like come attached to every government grant or subsidy). The "strings" in this case said that your trade-in, regardless of age or utility, had to be destroyed and crushed.

    It even described how. First, you had to drain all the oil from the engine, add a sand/silica mixture to the cooling system, then you had to run the engine until it froze up. What was left of the car had to be crushed. This meant that not only were all those cars destroyed, but the ones left on the road are harder to find parts for because all the engine parts were destroyed and everything else was crushed. You can find lots of videos of engines being destroyed on the interwebs.

    The value in all those destroyed cars was far greater than anything that was created by the incentives. And in the long term it hurts the poorest the most, who need transportation for jobs and keep their cars longer and rely on older cars to be reasonable to buy.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  22. Percent of compliance is irrelevant by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    I figure to come up with that many errors, there must have been several thousand searches per year that were done as intended and according to the law.

    This is a secret program and the only thing you can be sure of is that your do NOT have all the facts. This is an agency and a program that has NO accountability to the electorate. They operate in secret, their findings are secret, their actions on those findings are secret, their oversight is toothless and secret, and we can't even fight against the program because we cannot prove we were harmed and thus can't prove standing in front of a judge. Exactly how stupid do you have to be to think that the NSA is to be trusted unconditionally based on a tiny bit of leaked information?

    If they were 99.9% in compliance, there would be about 900,000 searches to get about 900 errors.

    Even if they were 100% in compliance it STILL would be a violation of our 4th amendment rights. The NSA's actions have never come under serious judicial review. The FISA court is a rubber stamp fig leaf of a justification. You can loudly proclaim that this program is "legal" all you want but that doesn't make it so nor does it make it right. Jim Crow laws once were "legal" but they still were wrong and ultimately unconstitutional. Furthermore even if we take your 900 number at face value (and in reality I do not) that is 900 people who were unlawfully deprived of their civil rights in some manner. Even one is too many.