NSA Spying: The Oversight of the Passive Voice
In a white paper claiming “the American people deserve to know what we are doing to protect both” privacy and liberty, and security, the government (Ellen Nakashima, at least, doesn’t specify which agency generated this) also includes this assertion:
The [dragnet metadata] program is subject to strict controls and oversight: the metadata is segregated and queries against the metadata are documented and audited.
The detail is one that NSA Director Keith Alexander had already claimed in his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee last week. He claimed,
Every time we query that database, it’s auditible by the committees, by DOJ, by the court, by the Administration.
In a telling comment to the press the other day, though, Dianne Feinstein, whose staffers on the Intelligence Committee would be the ones auditing the queries, said this:
Asked to confirm that intelligence officials do not need a court order for the query of the number itself, Feinstein said, “that’s my understanding.”
I found it really strange that a person who should be solidly in the thick of the audits Alexander was boasting about didn’t even seem sure about how someone accessed the database.
But then, Alexander said they were “auditable,” not that they were audited by all these people.
One of just a few explanations about oversight in a document trying to prove the government protects our privacy and liberty might be more persuasive if they weren’t presented in the passive voice. It doesn’t sound like DiFi knows Congress could audit the document; I wonder if the FISA Court, which Alexander claims also can audit the data, knows it can (I’d also like to see someone audit the claim it is segregated; is it ever copied?).
The white paper’s statements about the 702/PRISM program are equally unsatisfying.
Congress requires the Government to develop and obtain judicial approval for “minimization” procedures to ensure appropriate protection of any information about U.S. persons that may be incidentally acquired. The Government did that, and its procedures were approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
As I’ve noted repeatedly, the FISC doesn’t get to review compliance with these procedures, only the adequacy of them if applied as promised. And since this white paper makes no claims that the government can’t access this US person data — which, after all, includes content and metadata — it suggests the most sensitive collection for Americans has only internal (DOJ and ODNI review) safeguards for Americans’ Internet communications.
Effectively, in addition to providing further evidence for Mark Udall’s assertions that the government could accomplish what it says it is doing via other, far less sensitive means, this document only serves to show how inadequate the oversight of these programs is.
Thanks ew. Great bullseye on DiFi, “I found it really strange that a person who should be solidly in the thick of the audits Alexander was boasting about didn’t even seem sure about how someone accessed the database.”
Hey Keith, ofcourse, they’re “auditable.” It’s a transaction. How could it not be? Next question, how long does it take to audit a single query? Is that process automated, or manual (meaning a programmer has to dig into the code)? How many audits have been done? Were they compared to the query list? …
The Brits appear to be having a similar “debate” slightly more int the open.
2008, Times Article, Govt to spend 12bn on email, phone, Internet database to store conversations, etc: https://opennet.net/node/1008
2012, followup article, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9255201/Queens-Speech-Surveillance-of-the-entire-nation.html
I remember being fascinated in the late 80’s by the activities of the East German StaSi, specifically that they would record calls in bulk, save scent samples, etc and keep everything in a giant file. A lot of good that did them. http://echensf.blogspot.com/2011/06/museum-at-runde-ecke.html
On February 27, 2000, 60 Minutes –Season 32, Episode 24, “Echelon” — it was pointed out that the military NSA collected the electronic communication over “every square inch” of the planet.
With the doubling of computer power every 18 months (Moore’s Law) what they can do now exceeds that.
“The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”
If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.” (CNET)
Chris Wallace asked Dick Cheney about the NSA surveillance program this morning and, not surprisingly, Cheney said he supports the surveillance. Wallace then asked Cheney if the public wasn’t entitled to know about that surveillance. And, although Wallace pointed out that al Qaeda already knows about the surveilance, Cheney said it would betray sources and methods…which seems to indicate that he is using talking points and is afraid to stray from them. The most interesting question was yet to come, however. Wallace asked Cheney what he thought Americans were entitled to know about what government is doing. Cheney said they get to vote for the people who will provide oversight. Just cast your votes, folks, then shut up and let us drive!
Another comment was unrelated but much too interesting to leave out, was Cheney’s response to a question from Wallace about James Risen. Cheney indicated that his administration had not pursued a criminal indictment of Risen, and the accompanying penalty of 10 years in prison. He said their concerns focused on “the publisher, the editor and the Washington Bureau Chief.” That editor, of course, would be Bill Keller, who has behaved strangely in response to other whistleblower disclosures involving classified info.
@LM Lewis
Cheney is a fair weather friend when it comes to protecting sources and methods.
“That’s my understanding” could be reflexive, CYA, congress-speak. It’s hard to hang a conclusion on that. No disrespect, I love your speculations. Many are very good and will turn out right. But this one is a thin reed.
@Dredd: Nadler said he was “startled” because he knew it was wrong (that is, what the briefer had said).
[I’m sympathetic to Merkley not attending those farces. It’s like accessing a tiny piece of the Net of Million Lies Vernor Vinge wrote about in his novels. The most compelling reason to attend is so no one can point fingers at you for not attending and therefore being willfully ignorant of the details, because if you do choose to attend you know you’re going to get fed a mix of pablum and bullshit.]
A system this complex is going to produce a lot of pharsees who only know the elephant from the reach of their hands. Lots of national security personnel don’t understand the big picture; they only NEED to understand their piece.
@Orestes Ippeau:
A system this complex is going to produce a lot of pharsees who only know the elephant from the reach of their hands. Lots of national security personnel don’t understand the big picture; they only NEED to understand their piece.
It works that way in business, too: you’re not going to get the big picture unless management wants you to know. But if you keep your eyes and ears open, you can learn a lot more.