NSA is supposedly constrained to its strict national security mission charter. However, I've heard murmurs over the years about analysts passing off information in an unofficial capacity to federal law enforcement if what they come across sufficiently bothers them. Those agencies then figure out a way to legally obtain the data they were passed so it's admissible in court.
Recent quotes concerning GCHQ provide an interesting insight in this regard:
This implies they go after criminals and not just terrorists.
> "... of all the things those agencies are doing to stop your identify being stolen ..."
I guess they're also in the identity protection business.
> "But if you are a would-be terrorist or the centre of a criminal network ..."
Again, targeting of criminals (albeit high level).
---
IMHO, a top-secret dragnet surveillance program that's tightly restricted in scope to national security matters is a much easier pill to swallow than a completely legal, known program. The latter becomes nightmarish as soon as the data aggregates down the chain to law enforcement or other government agencies. Imagine local police departments having the same level of information about private citizens as NSA does. That's terrifying.
> However, I've heard murmurs over the years about analysts passing off information in an unofficial capacity to federal law enforcement if what they come across sufficiently bothers them. Those agencies then figure out a way to legally obtain the data they were passed so it's admissible in court.
Its trivial to see how such evidence could be laundered if the NSA wanted to -- all the NSA has to do is make anonymous tips to law enforcement that provide the basis for regular search, wiretap, etc. warrants. To do this, of course, they may need to provide information that can be confirmed without a warrant to demonstrate credibility, but its hardly as if the NSA is going to have trouble doing that. The receiving law enforcement agencies could be completely in the dark as to the actual source.
Absolutely true. What you said means the NSA has the capability to put whoever they wish under the microscope and effectively bury them by proxy. The only way that doesn't work is if they either have an irreproachable system of oversight, or whoever they're targeting has as led an extremely boring, uneventful life.
In theory, senior employees or executives at NSA contractors may even utilize similar tactics for anti-competitive or corporate espionage purposes.
You don't think they've thought of it being used between their contractors/executives? And that they haven't put any effort in to stopping that sort of use internally?
I'd be inclined to believe that there are likely to be controls to prevent people not authorized by higher ups within the NSA from doing this, as that would represent a security problem.
I am, to put it mildly, considerably less sure that these controls operate in a manner that inhibit NSA leadership from directing that this be done in specific cases, when they feel that providing this kind of under-the-table feed of information, particularly to domestic law-enforcement when the conditions in which the information was gathered would, if it were known, prevent the use of any information derived from it in court under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
I'm sure there are stringent barriers in place. Thing is, when many of the senior officials at NSA are former high-level executives at contractors, and vice versa, it makes you wonder.
Recent quotes concerning GCHQ provide an interesting insight in this regard:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/prism-gchq-willi...
> "If you are a law-abiding citizen ..."
This implies they go after criminals and not just terrorists.
> "... of all the things those agencies are doing to stop your identify being stolen ..."
I guess they're also in the identity protection business.
> "But if you are a would-be terrorist or the centre of a criminal network ..."
Again, targeting of criminals (albeit high level).
---
IMHO, a top-secret dragnet surveillance program that's tightly restricted in scope to national security matters is a much easier pill to swallow than a completely legal, known program. The latter becomes nightmarish as soon as the data aggregates down the chain to law enforcement or other government agencies. Imagine local police departments having the same level of information about private citizens as NSA does. That's terrifying.