Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trove of NSA Documents and FISC Opinions Declassified Thanks to EFF Lawsuit

Posted by Unknown on from the what-is-truth dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Thanks to an EFF lawsuit, the office of the Director of National Intelligence is releasing declassified redacted versions of various documents relating to the NSA's domestic surveillance activities. The documents are being released on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks." The EFF is hosting the documents, which are searchable. A few initial findings were posted yesterday evening; they include (thanks to another anonymous reader) the NSA illegally using phone data for three years, and evidence that Clapper knowingly mislead the public about metadata collection.

32 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. We have met the enemy .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And he is us.

    1. Re:We have met the enemy .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So what are we waiting for?! Let's bomb the sh*t out of...us?

    2. Re:We have met the enemy .... by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      I just did it.....
      More is expected tomorrow. BR? And the next day too.

    3. Re:We have met the enemy .... by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Wait....more shit is coming :D, ooohhhh, this mexican food.

    4. Re:We have met the enemy .... by RenderSeven · · Score: 2

      Nope, as long as the NSA turns its surveillance equipment over to Russia there is no need for Tomahawks.

    5. Re:We have met the enemy .... by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

      We have met the enemy, and he is [REDACTED].

      --
      how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
    6. Re:We have met the enemy .... by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      And he is us.

      The enemy is a lack of meaningful oversight and regulation.
      It doesn't matter if you're talking about the NSA, worker safety in mines, or the banking industry.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. The timing is impeccable by Guru80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Releasing the information on the anniversary of 9/11 can't be completely coincidental. On a day national security is rallied behind by those in power to protect us from another such incident it comes across as just a PR move to lessen the outrage if possible of those that will be up in arms over their activities.

    1. Re:The timing is impeccable by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On a day national security is rallied behind by those in power to protect us

      Do not forget that, according to the sitting US President, the greatest threat to national security is cyber-attack. And one of the greatest weaknesses in our cyber armor is the damage the NSA has done to the cryptography standards that our citizens and corporations rely upon for infosec. Well intentioned though they may be, the NSAs actions have harmed national cyber-security.

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    2. Re:The timing is impeccable by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Obama actually said [that cyber was the greatest threat to national security]

      Hah! Actually, I was wrong. It wasn't Obama. It was James Clapper. :)

      "This comes shortly after the release of the Worldwide Threat Assessment, in which U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, identifies cyber attacks and cyber espionage as the nationâ(TM)s biggest threat, passing that of terrorism."

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    3. Re:The timing is impeccable by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other news, [Group A] released a statement indicating that the biggest threat to national security today is [something Group A makes money from].

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:The timing is impeccable by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, he probably had no idea there was one every year.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:The timing is impeccable by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      The biggest threat to "national security" is an informed citizen who, having seen the numbers, would rather take their chances without it.

      We could save more lives through heart disease screening, or prostate exam funding (boobs get all the cash, but the more fatal cancer goes largely unfunded). For all the shit we've stirred up world wide in the name of "national security", they've failed to address EVERY leading cause of death in the world.

  3. Will we expect charges? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the NSA illegally using phone data for three years, and evidence that Clapper knowingly mislead the public about metadata collection.

    Should we expect criminal charges, or will we find out that since he lied to protect the politicians they'll go soft on this do nothing?

    Because he's either committed a criminal act, or he's just a stooge covering up for someone else.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Will we expect charges? by meerling · · Score: 2

      Of course, covering up for someone elses criminal act is itself a criminal act.
      I think that legally opens up 'conspiracy' charges as well, but ianal, so that's just a guess on my part.

    2. Re:Will we expect charges? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you expect the head of a spy service NOT to lie? This is at the top of the whole chain of problems with 'intelligence'.

      The basic safety valve in the US approach to government isn't 'democracy' (which we aren't) or some sort of special affinity by a magical deity. It is the concept and application of checks and balances. Nobody can ultimately be trusted. No institution can be trusted for any period of time. You MUST have the ability to check the scope and application of any government department's mission.

      An intelligence service beholden to no one with essentially unlimited funds is a scary monster indeed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Will we expect charges? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Do you expect the head of a spy service NOT to lie?

      To Congress? Yes.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re: Will we expect charges? by um...+Lucas · · Score: 2

      How can those "stooge politicians"do anything? I mean, between the NSA and the DEA horizon program, it'll pretty much go like this:

      Politician: you know, I think our laws have been broken and the intelligence community needs to be reformed.

      NSA: that's nice. You know all those calls to your mistress? Want them leaked, because we've got them recorded. Heck we don't have them recorded, but since the public thinks we do, we could just splice together your previous conversations and make them sound damning enough

      DEA: and 23 years ago you made phone calls to the girlfriend of someone we now know turned out to be a drug dealer or worse, a communist sympathizer. Your kids, too, appear heavily involved in the drug trade based on not who they call, but who their friends call.

      Face it, anyone, even mother Theresa, can have their name dragged through the dirt from these guys. The amount of data they could feasibly have is just that damning of an amount... I just can't expect any meaningful reform when every politician knows full well that any skeleton from their lifelong closet could be turned loose on them at a moments notice...

  4. So, when will heads roll? by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The news is full of all sorts of illegal shit that the NSA and its lackeys have been doing for years, yet I haven't heard a peep about any hints of prosecution.

    Where're the prosecutors with the balls to hold the watchers accountable?

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    1. Re:So, when will heads roll? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where're the prosecutors with the balls to hold the watchers accountable?

      That of course assumes that the DoJ would have any interest in pursuing this, and that the politicians who should have damned well known this was happening want to do anything but sweep this under the rug.

      It's hard not to believe this was done without anybody in authority knowing it was happening -- at which point the only people who could prosecute for this are part of the problem.

      Is this 'rogue agency stepping outside of its mandate', or just part of a bigger problem where government has decided the laws don't really matter?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:So, when will heads roll? by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 2

      Except that there're virtually always young Turks or gadflies or other types looking to make a name for themselves or upset the applecart when those in power show signs of weakness.

      Am I really to believe that there's nobody in this country with a badge interested in doing the right thing, for whatever reason?

      I can almost see how the Justice Department could have been purged so effectively that no junior prosecutor is willing to stick his or her neck out for something like this. But even in all fifty states and the territories? No first-term Representative from Hicksville's 52nd district willing to demand a Congressional investigation?

      Nobody!?

      b&

      --
      All but God can prove this sentence true.
    3. Re:So, when will heads roll? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except that there're virtually always young Turks or gadflies or other types looking to make a name for themselves or upset the applecart when those in power show signs of weakness.

      Sure there are, but since you'd be trying to prosecute the head of a federal agency (or near to it), you'd likely need the help of the Attorney General of the US.

      And if he's decided (or been told) that it's not in the national interest to do this, it simply won't happen.

      A junior prosecutor can't file charges his boss tells him he's not allowed to charge. He'd basically get fired or removed from the case.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you that someone should be charged -- I'm just of the opinion that as a practical matter it might be impossible for someone with the right jurisdiction to do anything about this to either have or exercise the will to prosecute.

      And I vaguely recall that the feds retain the right to basically say "you have no standing to sue because we said so". I have no idea of what entity could undertake this and be in any way free of being shut down by the feds who cite national security.

      The deck is unfortunately stacked against anybody who wants to prosecute this, since it could mean taking on the entire federal government.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:So, when will heads roll? by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 2

      That didn't stop Archibald Cox....

      b&

      --
      All but God can prove this sentence true.
    5. Re:So, when will heads roll? by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      Where're(sic) the prosecutors with the balls to hold the watchers accountable?

      They've all been sent mp3s of their latest phone calls to their bookie/mistress/whatever as a reminder.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    6. Re:So, when will heads roll? by sribe · · Score: 2

      And I vaguely recall that the feds retain the right to basically say "you have no standing to sue because we said so".

      The general principle, inherited from common law, is called "sovereign immunity", and it means exactly what it sounds like--one could only sue the king if he agreed that one could do so.

      As the centuries creep by, the general trend in the U.S. has been toward a weakening of sovereign immunity. But it's a slow process, and in my opinion the concept should have been mostly discarded 100 years ago. (I say "mostly" because governments are big fat targets for lunatics, so I don't object to, say, an independent panel of citizens who would review claims in order to toss the obvious bullshit before allowing it to clog up courts and waste taxpayer dollars.)

  5. Oh look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents

  6. Of course they were collecting by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not sure how they, or anyone, can claim they weren't, and aren't now, siphoning every phone call and email yet are somehow able to target specific individuals or look for keywords.

    If you're looking for keywords, then obviously you have to search everything. If you're looking for a specific word in a document, you have to search the entire document. You can't pick and choose.

    The same with digital communications. Unlike a copper wire to someone's house where you can place a tap or read mail destined only to their address, you have to look at all traffic and then filter. Thus, you have to look at everyone's email and listen in on every phone call to find what you are looking for.

    I barely qualify as geeky let alone as an expert, but even I know you can't claim to somehow, miraculously, target one individual's traffic in the stream while ignoring everyone else.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Of course they were collecting by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      How do you think the router works? No, don't tell, the router does not miraculously target the one individual's traffic....it happens by magic.

    2. Re:Of course they were collecting by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      If the police came to your house and walked through looking for drugs and then told you it wasn't a "search" because they hadn't found what they were looking for... would you agree that wasn't a search? This is unconstitutional in every way.

  7. What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I run a email spam filter. The server looks at every email body/envelope I receive and learns from it to identify spam. All major email providers do it and no one ever accused them of spying. Google even goes one step further and offers ads based on the email context.

      Is spam filtering spying? Is it bad?

  8. Oh yeah! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    A real treasure trove we got here...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. Where's the hole in your head? by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will a Google SWAT team show up at your house based on emails about hydroponics? No, but one from the DEA might.

    Facebook and Google want to sell ads. Whereas the government wants to prosecute people with illegally gathered evidence, as when the NSA feeds data to the DEA. Pretty fucking serious difference.