Slashdot Mirror


New Details About NSA's Exhaustive Search of Edward Snowden's Emails

An anonymous reader points out this Vice story with new information about the NSA's search of Edward Snowden's emails. Last year, the National Security Agency (NSA) reviewed all of Edward Snowden's available emails in addition to interviewing NSA employees and contractors in order to determine if he had ever raised concerns internally about the agency's vast surveillance programs. According to court documents the government filed in federal court September 12, NSA officials were unable to find any evidence Snowden ever had.

In a sworn declaration, David Sherman, the NSA's associate director for policy and records, said the agency launched a "comprehensive" investigation after journalists began to write about top-secret NSA spy programs upon obtaining documents Snowden leaked to them. The investigation included searches of any records where emails Snowden sent raising concerns about NSA programs "would be expected to be found within the agency." Sherman, who has worked for the NSA since 1985, is a "original classification authority," which means he can classify documents as "top-secret" and process, review, and redact records the agency releases in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

In his declaration, Sherman detailed steps he said agency officials took to track down any emails Snowden wrote that contained evidence he'd raised concerns inside the agency. Sherman said the NSA searched sent, received, deleted emails from Snowden's account and emails "obtained by restoring back-up tapes." He noted that NSA officials reviewed written reports and notes from interviews with "NSA affiliates" with whom the agency spoke during its investigation.

29 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. NSA scorecard on on truth? by Geste · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, Snowden is ahead by about 9,047 to 6.

    1. Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      dude authorized to lie to your face declares they didn't find anything

    2. Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this is a sworn declaration, and if it's a sworn declaration then it must be true because it's not like anyone has been caught lying under oath on this topic is it!

      Honestly, sworn declarations on this topic and the lack of punishment for breaching their oath when swearing the truth means you might as well read "Sworn declaration" as "In a conversation with his mate Dave down the pub".

    3. Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      If an NSA representative told me it was daytime outside and my watch said 12 noon, I would still walk outside to confirm it for myself.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But this is a sworn declaration, and if it's a sworn declaration then it must be true because it's not like anyone has been caught lying under oath on this topic is it!

      ;-) SEVERAL TIMES, and to CONGRESS no less. I think the NSA has gotten so in the habit of lying that they probably don't even know how to tell the truth anymore. Their employees would require extensive training to be reintroduced to concepts like "truth," "honesty" and "transparency."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? by machine321 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If an NSA representative told me it was daytime outside and my watch said 12 noon, I would still walk outside to confirm it for myself.

      Oh, like any of us have been outside.

    6. Re: NSA scorecard on on truth? by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next week they'll claim they have an email from Edward Snowden proving that he hates mom and apple pie, and is working for ISIS.

      "Wait, did ISIS even exist before Snowden left?" asks a reporter.

      "We suspect it was him that founded them," replies the NSA.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But this is a sworn declaration, and if it's a sworn declaration then it must be true because it's not like anyone has been caught lying under oath on this topic is it!

      Honestly, sworn declarations on this topic and the lack of punishment for breaching their oath when swearing the truth means you might as well read "Sworn declaration" as "In a conversation with his mate Dave down the pub".

      Actually, I'd say its worse than that. I can't remember a statement that the NSA has ever made publicly that wasn't a lie. By that fact alone I'd say this "declaration" is evidence that Snowden was truthful.

    8. Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you trust: the traitor or the patriot?

      The one sacrificing the Constitution to his personal gains and job interests, or the one sacrificing his personal gains and job interests to the Constitution?

    9. Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've no idea because personally I'm not American and hence not affected by the IRS' actions so nor do I particularly give a shit what they have or haven't lied about.

      The IRS may be a bigger threat to liberty in the US than the NSA, but it's certainly a non-entity in terms of dangers to liberty for the whole of the rest of the world compared to the NSA which is a real genuine threat for those of us not living in America yet still having our data stolen and our privacy invaded.

  2. Who fucking cares? by killfixx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're sounding more and more like 5 year old's complaining to their parents.

    Have some fucking accountability. Jesus.

    --
    "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    1. Re:Who fucking cares? by gargleblast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To me, they're sounding more and more like the Ministry Of Truth.

    2. Re:Who fucking cares? by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm... that sounds like something I read on my Kindle once, but I went to check and I can't find it...!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  3. Again? by towermac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So far, the NSA has lied (at first) about each and every little thing Snowden has leaked.

    I guess on this one though, we are supposed to take them at their word.

    1. Re:Again? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is a very dangerous game for the NSA to play. Presumably Snowden, being an intelligent guy, kept copies of those emails he said he wrote and will be able to produce them one day. Maybe he is still hoping to return to the US for a trial where he will enter them as evidence, or maybe he will just give up on the US entirely and put them out to defend his reputation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Again? by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Snowden seems organized, thoughtful and intelligent. He did openly state that he challenged anyone in the NSA to deny he tried to use the internal systems first to seek resolution. He can likely reveal his efforts rather easily and publicly. However propaganda doesn't require honesty on behalf of the NSA to be successful.

  4. What the meaning of the words 'concerns' is? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Recall the "NSA Releases Snowden Email, Says He Raised No Concerns About Spying" (05.29.14)
    http://www.wired.com/2014/05/s...
    ".... the NSA released a statement and a copy of the only email it says it found from Snowden.
    That email, the agency says, asked a question about legal authority and hierarchy but did not raise any concerns."
    Now its just about FIOA requests finding more or wondering what was held back as as the gov felt it "did not raise any concerns"....
    From no emails to one email found back to none under a definition of what "identify" is going to find?
    The other option is to only look for a few narrow legal terms that would constitute a formal complaint and not find one.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  5. Not reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry. These folks lied to congress. They did it for years. They scanned emails of senators and then lied about it. They lied about the scope, detail, retention and duration of their program, for years, to both congress and the American public.

    They have no credibility. I don't care if he is a 20 star general and is pinky-swearing it. I can't trust them. Trust is earned. Distrust is earned. They bought only distrust. They have not earned back one percent of one percent of the trust they have destroyed.

    I don't care what noises come out of the mouth of the sock-puppet. It isn't capable of speaking trustworthy words.

    1. Re:Not reliable by Lesrahpem · · Score: 4, Informative

      This may destroy my karma...

      The NSA is (theoretically) in a position where it cannot tell us what it has done for us. There may be all sorts of things the NSA has done to protect our nation. Publicly disclosing those actions could wreck their whole mission. We should consider, as IT professionals, that we're in a similar boat. We can't always tell the customer/client exactly what is going on, and even if we do tell them they're unlikely to fully understand. We definitely don't tell our customer's competitors what we are doing.

      The real issue with the NSA is this: who is the customer?

  6. Moot point... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the NSA and federal government didn't change after the info was released publicly, why are they acting like an internal complaint might have made a difference?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  7. Misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a simple misdirection, common in many types of argument. Whether or not Mr. Snowden attempted to bring problems to anyone's attention is immaterial to the main problem, which is that the NSA was exhibiting this behavior in the first place.

    1. Re:Misdirection by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Snowden can show that he applied due diligence by going through the channels to discuss his concerns and was ignored or he felt threatened, he can still try to use whistle-blowing as a defense.

      Otherwise, he may have had legitimate concerns, but bypassed normal procedures and just ran off with the stash and caused them to be made public, which is a federal offense, whistle-blower or not.

      What are you talking about? Snowden doesn't need a defense, because he'd be an utter moron to ever willingly come back to NSA jurisdiction again.

      Aside from that, Snowden knew damn well that "going through the channels" directly results in the NSA ruining your life and burying whatever you were trying to be a whistleblower about. How did he know this? Simple, by learning about what happened to the last few people who tried to be whistleblowers using the "channels!"

      In other words, the "official channels" don't work, so trying to say Snowden is guilty because he didn't use them is specious. Any court that accepts such an argument is of the "Kangaroo" or "Star Chamber" variety.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  8. Meanwhile the world burns by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The NSA, with apparent approval from our gov't, spies on its own citizens with impunity, and let seem to be caught flat-footed by events unfolding the Middle East and Ukraine (at least from what I have heard on the radio)
    The president twiddles his thumbs while our allies cry out for help.
    What in three hells happened to our country?

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  9. Re:This is the guy who decides? by geogob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forget the tinfoil hat.

    Obviously, any email discussing the existence and raising concern about highly classified programs will be also classified as such. Most likely these emails would be removed or redacted to before any review of the email could take place. I am pretty certain emails shouldn't contain highly classified information, hence the people reviewing the emails will most likely not have the security clearance to review highly classified materials. Assuming they are classified as such, not only do they not have to admit of their existence, they are not allowed to admit it.

    I am really not a fan on conspiracy theories, nor do I prone propagating them. On the contrary.
    Although this might sound like one, for me it feels more like standard procedures and due process that turned out to be quite convenient.

  10. issue | Snowden by dingleberrie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's make this about Snowden.
    After all, if he didn't raise concerns, then how could they have possibly known there were any issues.

    1. Re:issue | Snowden by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After all, if he didn't raise concerns, then how could they have possibly known there were any issues.

      Well, for starters, they could have listened to the last several whistleblowers (e.g. Binney and Drake) who did try to use "official channels" instead of marginalizing them and ruining their lives.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  11. Emails restored by rylmann · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps the NSA should share its email recovery procedures with the IRS.

  12. Because William Binney and Thomas Drake by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In 2001, William Binney, an NSA investigator, began blowing the whistle on NSA warrantless surveillance. He went through official channels to his superiors, then to Congress, then to the major media. He was harrassed and prosecuted by the government, and ignored and maginalized by the major media. He has kept at it for the past thirteen years.

    In 2010, Thomas Drake started blowing the whistle. He was also prosecuted, harrassed, ignored, and marginalized.

    In 2011, Ron Wyden began warning the public about the secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, as loudly as he could without violating his clearance to be on the Intelligence Committee. The major media ignored him.

    In 2013, when Snowden released his docs, the major media finally started listening to Binney, Drake, and Wyden. The establishment's treatment of Binney, Drake, and Wyden is why Snowden had to follow the path he did.

    The President of the United States has said that these programs should change. Programs that Binney, Drake, and Wyden tried to warn us about through official channels. Programs that we still would not know about if Snowden had gone through official channels.

  13. Add One More "least untruth" by Guy+From+V · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In response to a FOIA request a ProPublica journalist filed for just this kind of information last year, the NSA told him they couldn't do those kind of searches that they apparently just did. Well, dang...it's a good thing that they figured out they could, I mean gosh...if they'd just got it squared away last year then we'd have known a lot earlier how clean their hands were in all this.