I think "shut down" means "move to collect via other means which are currently classified".
Once the tiger has tasted human blood it is always a man-eater.
They have ONE and ONLY one mandate "Collect all the things".
There is virtually no chance that the NSA will stop collecting this information until there is actual meaningful oversight.
If DNI James Clapper can directly lie to Congress publicly and face no consequences & the CIA is able to spy on the Senators & then whitewash it - there is zero credibility left in any intelligence agency following the rules. At this point we might as well say it - we have let loose the dogs and now are at their mercy.
But, he's not wrong. Collect all the things is exactly their mandate. This information is then mined to produce actionable intelligence. It's absolutely what we do in business today, but turned toward diplomatic aims.
I don't see why this is a conspiracy kind of thing. We have a spy agency, that are hired to do SIGINT spying.
Their "Mission" page indicates their SIGINT mission:
"""
The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations.
"""
Collecting All the Things is not in the mandate, but it's a very effective way to meet it. I'm not even sure how they'd go about collecting only mission-specific information without being able to peek at the metadata they collect on us all.
I don't like it, but I don't see an alternative way to do what they are mandated to do.
Ah, but they don't know if it's a foreigner until they look at it. So might as well collect it all and figure out which ones are the foreign ones later. After all, the data's not actually "collected" until an analyst looks at it. It's a sort of Heisenberg-data - only exists when you look at it. While it's sitting in the NSA data centre, it's entirely harmless!
That makes me sad, but in a world where the one and only person punished for our torture program was the whistleblower, it's hard to believe the NSA even has to pretend to follow the law. And if / when they get caught, all they have to do is yell terrorists, terrorists to get a get out of jail free card.
While I agree strongly with your sentiment, why even bother bringing up the "conspiracy nut" label? It's only ever used in an ad hominem attack, and has nothing to do with the truth. All arguments should be judged on sources and reason, regardless of how farfetched or paranoid they seem from your perspective.
Snowden showed us that a lot of things that sounded exactly like paranoid conspiracy theories were 100% true. At this point I wouldn't blame someone for thinking we should maybe take another look at UFO sightings or mind control satellites or something.
Quoting the top review: "This is a documentary not about UFOs but rather intelligence operations perpetrated against Americans by their government in order to cover up top secret projects and engage in social control experiments using a particular American subculture."
There is historical precedent: remember back in 2004 when congress shut down Poindexter's "Total Information Awareness" program, and we never had to worry about domestic surveillance ever again?
Rebranding has been the tactic of choice ever since Blackwater decided that PR was expensive and it would be cheaper to simply rebrand themselves as "Xe" (now "Academi" - they ruined the "Xe" brand, too).
Blackwater was a private company. They did briefly rebrand as Xe. A ridiculous name that sounds even more scary than blackwater. Academi may as well be a new organization.i don't consider it a successor to blackwater, even if it is in a legal sense. a company purchased blackwater for their extensive training facilities (possibly the most best in the world at the time). The blackwater IP left a long time ago.
the true spiritual successor is Prince's UAE private contractor company. according to Wikipedia it is called Reflex Responses, but Wikipedia is generally shit with this kind of information. *
* Wikipedia has to cite sources, the only publicly available sources are mainstream media, written by clueless journalists who barley understand the subject matter. for example the Wikipedia article mentions Prince recruited from Executive Outcomes, 12 years after they ceased trading. He may have recruited from EO's alleged spiritual successor, but he definitely did not recruit from a company that no longer existed.
Blackwater as a starting point is only a rough estimate.
Rebranding has, of course, existed ever since ancient humans figured out that using an alias was useful. My point is that it is not that it is a new tactic; I'm suggesting that it has been a tactic of choice, preferred over others such as using propaganda to deny problematic accusations (traditionally popular in Russia), or claiming bad things are good for patriotic reasons.
From Bamford's books, I get that the NSA does not consider itself to be bound by the Constitution, US law, etc. As a military organization, it is subject only to the authority of the President. And I gather that it fudges on even that, through a Byzantine maze of need-to-know restrictions.
I'm not sure where you're getting this. The NSA is not a military organization. And all organs of the executive branch are bound by law and the Constitution.
They may get away with illegal behavior for a time, but that doesn't mean it isn't illegal.
The difference between theory in practice is greater in practice than in theory.
NSA does not view itself bound by the US constitution (or the whole executive branch as a whole) and view it as a nuisance that must be at best circumvented to do their perceived job. (To the NSA guy reading this comment - have a nice day, it is tedious)
If the "they're" in your statement is "The Intelligence Organs", then no, Congress was absolutely (and continues to be) kept in the dark about what was (and is) going on.
Senators Wyden and Udall (both members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and -therefore- privy to classified briefings and Q&A sessions delivered direct from intelligence agencies) frequently and loudly proclaimed:
0) We are prohibited from speaking specifically -to anyone- about what we have been told in our capacities as members of the Intelligence Committee.
1) If the rest of Congress and/or the American people were told what the Intelligence Committee was told, they would be horrified by the extent of the overreach and creative interpretation of law. [0]
2) The intelligence agencies habitually stonewalled any real inquiries by the Intelligence Committee into their activities. What the Committee got to do was listen to the agency's spiels, ask a few softball questions, and adjourn for the day.
[0] Clearly, not all members of the Committee felt this way. Mrs. Feinstein, in particular, seemed to be very pleased with the status quo. (Big surprise, right?)
Congress isn't above lying about this. Pelosi was dumb enough to contradict herself on that score (I could have stopped that sentence after three words). They knew. They just didn't want anyone to know they knew when the cat was out of the bag. "The CIA lied to me" sounds a lot better than "I knew what they were doing. So what?" Deflecting blame is the #1 key skill for a Congressman.
Also... "prohibited"? By whom? By rules the committee itself made. That the committee can change. Federal agencies don't have the power to prevent Congress from doing a damn thing. Don't kid yourself - Congress is the problem here.
Agreed. I also note that the Intelligence Agencies aren't above lying to Congress (whether behind closed doors or in public hearings), to the DoJ, the Supreme Court, the President, or anyone else for that matter.
> Also... "prohibited"? By whom?
Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Congressmen are NOT immune from prosecution that stems from their disclosure of classified information that they receive firsthand.[0] What's more, the Speech or Debate clause only protects Congressmen from arrest and detention while performing their official duties. It doesn't shield Congressmen from prosecution stemming from illegal acts performed while acting as Congressmen.
So, no, Federal agencies can't prevent[1] Congressmen from revealing directly-disclosed-to-the-congressman classified information on the debate floor. But then, a Congressman can't protect himself from prosecution, fines, and jail time after the big reveal.
[0] Remember that the Pentagon Papers were sent to a Congressman by a newspaper. Generally speaking, disclosure of classified information that's in the public interest by a person who is not under an obligation to control access to said information is a protected activity, as is disclosure of classified info by the press.
[1] Though, they can directly discourage it by limiting cooperation with Committees and access to personnel. This would clearly be a roadblock, rather than a permanent obstruction, but it would probably serve as a permanent obstruction to dispassionate Congressmen.
1) Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. Congress passes bills that become laws. The judicial system's rulings on cases form precedent which fills in the holes of (or totally perverts, depending on the case) law passed by Congress. The judicial system's part in this is part of why it's so critically important to get good rulings on edge cases.
2) You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope.
3) To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congres should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. This would obviously permit them to act in any way that they felt would best allow them to improve the health and well being of the Republic.
No. Judges do not make law. I see what you're trying to say, but making law is not their function. To the extent they engage in legislating from the bench they ought to be punished with censure and/or impeachment.
>You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope.
That ship sailed long ago. Congress exempts itself from all sorts of laws. Insider trading is the one that pops into mind most prominently. And do you remember the House banking scandal? Most recently they've exempted themselves from the ACA.
The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd. If that's the state of the law now they ought to change it.
>To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congress should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen.
They certainly need enough freedom to do their jobs. That's why the constitution includes the Speech and Debate clause.
We live in a system that considers both the text of a law and the Judicial precedent surrounding that law. The Judicial branch interprets law, and issues binding statements based on that interpretation multiple times per day every single day. For a recent example, search for "The state asked the court to employ a remedy in this situation" in [0] and read on until the end of the paragraph.
Notice that this remedy is something that courts are supposed to do whenever they can. Moreover, history is littered with creative interpretations of law. Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most well-known.
>The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd.
Heh. You really need to spend a month or two and read all the level-headed accounts you can find of the role that staffers and lobbyists play in Congress.
I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect that when you learn how the sausage is made these days, you'll change some of your more objectionable opinions.
You're just proving my point here. Wickard was a bad ruling which should have resulted some sort of correction (either impeachment or a change in the law)
I know how laws are made, that's why I want to make sure information gets to the people who need it to make good decisions. They may ignore that information, but at least they'll have it.
If you knew about Wickard -and rulings like it-, then you knew that judges frequently interpret and -through the act of interpretation- shape law. Because you knew this, you also knew that your statement "Judges do not make law." was a falsehood.
Like it or not, we live with a Judicial system that considers both the text of a law and the court precedent relating to that law.
We've been living in this system since the founding of the Republic. We have always had the system that you say we shouldn't, and we will very likely continue to have it until the day that the Republic has vanished from the earth.
Honestly, you might be happier in one of those European countries that give their courts zero room for interpretation. :)
What we're seeing right now is some kind of weird kabuki dance where congress pretends to shut something down by having a debate over whether to re-authorize one of several justifications NSA uses for monitoring U.S. citizens. The only reason it's considered equivalent to "shutting down the program" is that folks haven't been paying attention.
As far as illegality, what the Executive has taken to doing over the last 20 years or so is lawyer-shopping until they can get an opinion that justifies what they already decided they were going to do. Then they classify both the decision and the legal justification. No information = no debate. No debate = no oversight. Very nice and easy. Problem solved.
We need the NSA. But the structure of the legal system the operate in has been totally fucked up by the War on Terror. I don't even think most politicians understand the nature of the problem, much less are able to provide needed oversight.
There's no evidence of this. Many countries have nowhere near the intelligence capabilities of the 5 Eyes and yet seem to do just fine for themselves. In many ways, better than the USA.
The NSA is part of the Department of Defense. Its Director is Admiral Michael S. Rogers, US Navy. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is James R. Clapper, who served as a General in the US Air Force. I believe that NSA Directors are necessarily active military, while DNIs are necessarily retired.
I concur with venomsnake that "The difference between theory in practice is greater in practice than in theory."
Congress has arguably had no meaningful oversight over the NSA since the 50s. Eisenhower warned us. He wasn't just talking about defense contractors. One might say that the US has been pwned by military hackers. I highly recommend Bamford's books.
No. You included the DNI-is-part-of-DHS factoid because you thought that it bolstered your claim that "The NSA is not a military organization.". [0] You were wrong. :)
This very thing is in the FREEDOM Act text. They move collections to private holders (this is what they originally claimed was the case anyway). The surveillance hasn't stopped. There's simply a different legal process for getting records now (now - if the bill passes).
Yes. As just one example more and more calls of importance have moved to VoIP and/or become video calls. I rate the chances of the NSA deciding that these are not "phone calls" for the purposes of the expiry at 100% likely.
That's assuming they can't simply stop collecting call metadata, but then keep collecting tower signalling metadata or something like that, thus allowing them to tell themselves that's not what Congress cared about ..... and then extract call metadata on demand from it.
It's obvious that the NSA cannot be controlled by anything at this point. The DoJ would need to jail Clapper to get their attention and that won't happen short of some ridiculous sex-related personal scandal.
The 215 business is all red herring, honestly. The FISA 702 program continues unabated. Phone communication is obsolete, and they're not kicking and screaming that much when there is no serious challenge to 702 authority.
I agree about FISA; and Marcy Wheeler has some great stuff to say about Richard Burr's alternate bill and internet collection. [1] However I wouldn't say that 215 is a red herring -- it'll be a significant victory if it sunsets, for reasons Jennifer Granick describes at [2].
What's to "prepare" for shutting it down? Reminds me of the story where John Coltrane told Miles Davis that he didn't know how to end his solos. Miles said: "Try taking the fucking horn out of your mouth."
They're not going to shut down a single thing. They need to roll out a half-assed update to 'minimize' data on US persons, and also open investigations of potential criminal activity into as many millions of Americans as possible (because they can keep surveillance on in that case).
They'll probably try to do this as sloppily as possible because as long as they can claim surveillance of US people is unintentional, it's legal under FISA 702.
Nice. I'm sure there must be administrative stuff no? Shuffling employees around. Shutting down servers. Setting up the pipeline to deal with the telcos. Etc. Etc.
But yea, it should be as simple as a switch, the rest is just after effects, you're right.
Depending on which bill passes, if any, they may move to a system where they contact providers and request records on a case-by-case basis... like every law enforcement agency already does. That does require some changes in procedures.
What they have to do is prepare to do their jobs in the absence of the kind of programs that will no longer be authorized. Most likely what that means is they're going to do things like hire a bunch of lawyers to handle an increase in the number of requests they make to FISA courts.
What they're really doing here is what bureaucrats always do when you tell them they can't do something - this is the first step in a PR campaign to scare people into forcing Congress to reauthorize expansive data collection.
With essentially zero visibility, it's meaningless.
Historically they could totally lie, be discovered, make headlines and still no one would go to jail. The folks behind this have more of a chance of getting tickets for jaywalking than they do of doing time for violating the laws prohibiting them from spying.
Indeed. They're basically saying "trust us, we've shut it down."
Yeah, okay. It's even worse that it supposedly "leaked" only a few hours before the White House made the announcement public. I guess the White House has been paying attention at how to make things go viral, to fool everyone.
except when these things pass, Google & Co. can decide not to play ball and have legal backing to do so. Though in this case, Google still needs to collect info..
The way a secret service orders a company to participate to their surveillance systems is not only using the law. It is often by performing ad hominem blackmailing, so even if the CEO orders everyone to reject participation, the low-level operator will let the NSA person in, and his boss will cover the leak in fear of his child being taken in for drug use at his high school.
In addition, some people will do it voluntarily (and not talk about it), motivated sometimes by profit (bribes) or some sense patriotism[1] and duty. There are many authoritarian collaborators in this country - including way to many from the tech industry.
[1] misplaced, as they should be supporting the Constitution, not a particular administration
Notice all Democrat Senators voted for it. They are going to spend all this week trying to bring over 3 more Senators by offering to add amendments to the bill.
The time to act is now, not May 31st minutes before the vote. Does anyone know how to reach out to Senators and let them know that we want them to let section 215 of the Patriot Act to expire, and not to vote for USA Freedom Act simply because a few new amendments might be added in the next week?
There is a long way to go to shut these down. Other areas of the Patriot Act such as "sneek-and-peek" are also needing to be rooted out. Over 99% of sneak and peak uses were for domestic crime. I ask what is wrong with our regular law + justice systems where this was needed?
The 2013 report confirms the incredibly low numbers. Out of 11,129 reports only 51, or .5%, of requests were used for terrorism.[1]
> Administration officials said later that they had to start the lengthy procedure of winding down the counter-terrorism program in anticipation of Congress failing to act.
I find this sentence construction grating. They didn't fail to act. They acted to stop the program (well... so far).
That's not the case as I understand it. Portions of USA Patriot have sunset provisions - all Congress has to do to make them go away is nothing. They're not acting to stop anything.
"But the rise of ISIS will continue" they say, and they sure did while the program was going on as well.
So using a justification that existed and grew while the programs existed just proves they are for other reasons.
Other parts of the law are also bogus 'terrorism' reasoning including sneak and peek searches:
First, the numbers: Law enforcement made 47 sneak-and-peek searches nationwide from September 2001 to April 2003. The 2010 report reveals 3,970 total requests were processed. Within three years that number jumped to 11,129. That's an increase of over 7,000 requests. Exactly what privacy advocates argued in 2001 is happening: sneak and peak warrants are not just being used in exceptional circumstances—which was their original intent—but as an everyday investigative tool.
Second, the uses: Out of the 3,970 total requests from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010, 3,034 were for narcotics cases and only 37 for terrorism cases (about .9%). Since then, the numbers get worse. The 2011 report reveals a total of 6,775 requests. 5,093 were used for drugs, while only 31 (or .5%) were used for terrorism cases. The 2012 report follows a similar pattern: Only .6%, or 58 requests, dealt with terrorism cases. The 2013 report confirms the incredibly low numbers. Out of 11,129 reports only 51, or .5%, of requests were used for terrorism. The majority of requests were overwhelmingly for narcotics cases, which tapped out at 9,401 requests.
So with this one known tool "sneek-and-peek" searches (which in my opinion violate the 4th), over 99% were used for domestic crime rather than terrorism.
Question: What is wrong with normal justice + law system for domestic crime?
Answer: it is easier to use war powers with no checks and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
They have ONE and ONLY one mandate "Collect all the things".
There is virtually no chance that the NSA will stop collecting this information until there is actual meaningful oversight.
If DNI James Clapper can directly lie to Congress publicly and face no consequences & the CIA is able to spy on the Senators & then whitewash it - there is zero credibility left in any intelligence agency following the rules. At this point we might as well say it - we have let loose the dogs and now are at their mercy.