Slashdot Mirror
NSA's Novel Claim: Our Systems Are Too Complex To Obey the Law
Reader Bruce66423 (1678196) points out skeptical-sounding coverage at the Washington Post of the NSA's claim that it can't hold onto information it collects about users' online activity long enough for it to be useful as evidence in lawsuits about the very practice of that collection. From the article: 'The agency is facing a slew of lawsuits over its surveillance programs, many launched after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked information on the agency's efforts last year. One suit that pre-dates the Snowden leaks, Jewel v. NSA, challenges the constitutionality of programs that the suit allege collect information about Americans' telephone and Internet activities.
In a hearing Friday, U.S. District for the Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey S. White reversed an emergency order he had issued earlier the same week barring the government from destroying data that the Electronic Frontier Foundation had asked be preserved for that case. The data is collected under Section 702 of the Amendments Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
But the NSA argued that holding onto the data would be too burdensome. "A requirement to preserve all data acquired under section 702 presents significant operational problems, only one of which is that the NSA may have to shut down all systems and databases that contain Section 702 information," wrote NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett in a court filing submitted to the court.
The complexity of the NSA systems meant preservation efforts might not work, he argued, but would have "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States.'
Adds Bruce66423: "This of course implies that they have no backup system — or at least that the backup are not held for long."
If you can't have your data available to demonstrate what you're doing it lawful, and you are going to delete it, then only reasonable conclusion is what you are doing cannot be proven lawful.
Therefore, the program is not lawful, and you need to stop.
Problem solved.
This amounts to "your honor, we collect so damned much information we couldn't possibly hold onto it long enough to be subject to legal oversight. Trust us."
What crap.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So wait, the NSA's argument as to why their program is legal.. is that they're too incompetent to design a system that can follow the law. Shouldn't this be grounds to fire everyone at the NSA for incompetence, if this is the argument they're using?
"This of course implies that they have no backup system — or at least that the backup are not held for long."
It implies nothing other than the NSA continues to lie whenever an order to turnover data is presented.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
This is pretty much what will happen. The precedent was set with the banks and auto industry. I don't see why the NSA can't use the same argument.
My biology is so complex it's not understood yet either!
Woohoo! Behold the new lawless me!!!!!
Mostly random stuff.
Everything concerning the NSA has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Releasing any information has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Saving any information has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Any whistle blowers have "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Disagreeing with any official has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Giving out the legal reasoning behing their operations has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Why have more people not clued in that the NSA is "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
they have damaged the reputation of their agencies simply by believing that none of their secrets would get out. My mom always told me that once more than one person knows something it is no longer a secret and will not be kept that way.
The NSA, The CIA, the FBI and the Justice department have already been caught in BOLD FACED LIES in regards to their activities on dozens of occasions. The Presidents (both Obama and Bush) have gone on National Television and lied directly to the American people regarding this programs over and over and over again. Several NSA directors have gone in front of congress and lied while under oath. They were then called back and admitted that they're lied. You cannot trust anything they say at all. The only solution to this is to shut down the agency. They are willing to violate the law, the constitution, court order and even the will of the president. No regulatory reform or court order will be effective against an agency that thinks its charter is more important than obeying the law or will of the people. They fundamentally believe that your physical safety is more important than our individual rights. That is totalitarianism. It is not a belief that is compatible with democracy.
It's the biggest system there is. There's nothing to 'back it up to', for various reasons. The letter of the (original) order can't be complied with, without shutting it off, and saving the current contents for the upcoming hearing (or trial). In the meantime, we have nothing as far as NSA protection goes. I get that.
That doesn't mean the the spirit of the order can't be complied with. Snapshots of sections, randomly chosen database blocks from among representative groups, a sampling of the most called routines; something. If it's a freaking computer, then there is some way that evidence can be gotten without bringing the system down, assuming cooperation on the part of the admins. I hope they are not getting off the hook.
We can call this The NSA Defense (our systems are too complex for the law), and the inverse of it is The Amazon Defense (the law is too complex for our systems).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Aww, poor NSA, their systems are too complex for them to control according to the law? What a terrible 1st world problem to have! Fear not NSA, I have a solution that will take this horrible burden off your shoulders, and make the rest of us happy at the same time: simplify your goddamn systems to the point where you can 'control' them and be in accordance with the law. Either that or maybe we need to take a chainsaw to your 'systems' and just chop them down to a reasonable size. Here, here's an abacus, that's about all I'd trust you motherfuckers with at this point.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Credit unions.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Unlike politicians, who impose themselves even upon those, who voted against them, banks have no power over you if you don't use them. You don't have to convince other people to stop using banks — just stop doing it yourself and you'll be free from them...
Nobody forces people into the debt. They take it voluntarily and are genuinely happy, when their applications are approved. Without banks, you'd have to save money for 10 years before buying a house. With banks, you can move-in right away and pay off in 15 years. Loans are a service, that banks provide to willing customers.
I'm not aware of this "money sucking machine". Could you, please, elaborate?
Just what is it, that you'd like to see "untangled"?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.