Adventures in Credulous NSA Journalism, Episode 2,524
The Hill sees fit to quote NSA’s Compliance Officer John DeLong boasting that the NSA put in (one of) the reforms Obama announced the day he announced it — which (DeLong claimed) was proof that NSA’s compliance system works.
Earlier this year, Obama directed the NSA to get court approval before it searched a database of Americans’ phone records and limited those searches to people two “hops” away from a suspect.
DeLong said on Thursday that the changes were put into effect the same day that the president announced them.
“It helped to have a compliance program — a compliance workforce — that was already in place,” he said. That way, the agency was not operating “from a cold start.”
As I noted in January when commentators first started hailing what the Administration billed as a great change, it was instead presidential codification of a policy that had been in place since 2011.
I’m seeing a lot of enthusiasm about President Obama’s promise to limit the NSA to 2 hops on its phone dragnet.
Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of three.
But it’s not that big of a limit.
As far back as 2011, the NSA had standardized on 2-hops, only permitting a 3rd with special approval. (See page 13.)
While the BR Order permits contact chaining for up to three hops, NSA has decided to limit contact chaining to only two hops away from the RAS-approved identifier without prior approval from your Division management to chain the third hop.
So in effect, Obama has replaced the NSA’s internal directive limiting the hops to 2 with his own directive (which can be pixie dusted with no notice) limiting the hops to 2.
What NSA’s ability to implement this change immediately shows is not the great performance of its compliance program, but rather the ability to do nothing while claiming a great victory over the status quo.
But don’t look for that to appear in most reporting on the NSA.
the nice thing about defending the whitehouse’s expansion and codification of nsa/doj/fbi spying on americans is that the subject matter is so complex, so wrapped in high-tech legalese, so malleable, so overlapping in authorities authorizing spying,
that it is impossible for an ordinary journalist to write accurately and sensiblely about nsa “reform”.
the most misleading journalistic writing is that that discusses one small program, one small change from past practice, one new “legal limitation” out of context of the greater operation.
thus, nsa spying’s complexity makes it a slam-dunk dream job for a government p.r. contractor or for defending executive and congressional staffers. all that is needed is a feed to an eager reporter/editor.
in the entire nation, i doubt there are more than a dozen journalists like ew who have the panaramic view and the deep, detailed understanding of the nsa/doj/fbi spying game that insures they know what they are talking about when they write on nsa “reform”.
the rest of the pack are writing gov’t propaganda, albeit mostly well-intentioned.
quote “What NSA’s ability to implement this change immediately shows is not the great performance of its compliance program, but rather the ability to do nothing while claiming a great victory over the status quo.”
Hmmm, doesn’t Leahy’s Freedumb3 codify NSA’s authoritah to not comply with anything while claiming a great victory over the status quo? You don’t have to answer that. We already know.. never trust the NSA..EVAH.
quote”So in effect, Obama has replaced the NSA’s internal directive limiting the hops to 2 with his own directive (which can be pixie dusted with no notice) limiting the hops to 2.”unquote
Living proof the Dumbest Country on the Planet continues to be.
sheeezus.. l
btw emptywheel, congrats on your article in the Week, getting front page Google news coverage!
Compliance officer/program? I would hope every employee is a compliance officer and that every program is focused on compliance. Having a separate team/ program seems like lip service ( like appointing a privacy officer).
They do that so they have one person in charge of the program. It’s actually sensible that way.
quote”Compliance officer/program?”unquote
quote”They do that so they have one person in charge of the program. It’s actually sensible that way.”unquote
Compliance? Hmmm, dumb me. And here I thought that was the Intelligence committee’s job.