A week ago, Ars Technica had a writeup on NSA metadata collection, saying that the FISC had approved Obama's tweaks. What I couldn't figure out, though, was why anyone might think the court wouldn't approve them.
They approved MORE blatantly unconstitutional collection, so why would they not approve making it a hair less so? Really, the changes were basically in the "who cares?" zone, they were so minor. But I can't think of any possible way the court would say no.
Showing posts with label surveillance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surveillance. Show all posts
20140215
20131114
"We'll talk more..."
I was amused to hear, yesterday, as I was driving in to work, that the NSA had identified all remaining documents that Edward Snowden took, and was going to proactively address the media about what is in those documents.
Two interesting things about this. One is that it admits that merely mentioning the existence of these programs is not, itself, a security threat. That's progress, of a sort.
The second, though, is that the NSA has no credibility in these matters. At every step, their MO has been to do one of lying, misleading, or outright denial. And every claim has been discredited, either with already-available info (such as the claim that there were 54 specific terror threats prevented with mass surveillance) or with other documents later released from the Snowden Cache.
So I can't say as I really care what the NSA claims, going forward. Nor, I think, should anyone else.
Two interesting things about this. One is that it admits that merely mentioning the existence of these programs is not, itself, a security threat. That's progress, of a sort.
The second, though, is that the NSA has no credibility in these matters. At every step, their MO has been to do one of lying, misleading, or outright denial. And every claim has been discredited, either with already-available info (such as the claim that there were 54 specific terror threats prevented with mass surveillance) or with other documents later released from the Snowden Cache.
So I can't say as I really care what the NSA claims, going forward. Nor, I think, should anyone else.
20130930
Judging listening?
I was reading Greenwald's latest notes on NSA spying, and had an odd thought.
When cases come up in court (like the ACLU's case that it has been unjustly spied on, and that that makes the ACLU's business difficult, if not impossible, to pursue), many of the judges likely to rule on the issue are going to, themselves, be Verizon customers. So they will know that THEY have been spied on, as well.
I wonder how that will affect their rulings. Or will the government push to have judges who aren't Verizon customers deciding. The latter would certainly make for some interesting arguments.
Also, for anyone thinking of taking the government oversight review panel even a little bit seriously, check out this summary that Glen points out. In it, you can easily see that this is actually an in-house review that will be focused on excuse-making, not an independent one focused on accountability.
When cases come up in court (like the ACLU's case that it has been unjustly spied on, and that that makes the ACLU's business difficult, if not impossible, to pursue), many of the judges likely to rule on the issue are going to, themselves, be Verizon customers. So they will know that THEY have been spied on, as well.
I wonder how that will affect their rulings. Or will the government push to have judges who aren't Verizon customers deciding. The latter would certainly make for some interesting arguments.
Also, for anyone thinking of taking the government oversight review panel even a little bit seriously, check out this summary that Glen points out. In it, you can easily see that this is actually an in-house review that will be focused on excuse-making, not an independent one focused on accountability.
20130813
We Want that Conversation
You almost have to laugh, listening to Obama spinning the surveillance revelations that keep on coming.
Saying that he welcomes the conversation. Yeah, that's why we needed a whistleblower to reveal what's been going on.
Saying that there are checks and balances. Yeah, the secret court that rubber stamps everything. And the Congress that knew everything about it, so they could keep it in check. It kills me how we're now finding out how some members of Congress were deliberately keeping others (most of the others) in the dark about what was going on. As if the administration hiding all possible knowledge wasn't bad enough.
Saying that there will be an independent review. Yeah, reviewed by a board appointed by the guy running the show. That shows independence. I wonder if they'll even be allowed to suggest any changes. And if they'll have the requisite clearance. And if they'll get honest answers to their questions.
I can't say that anything that's happened has been a huge surprise, but it certainly shows a serious lack of integrity on the part of just about everyone in the White House. And that definitely doesn't make it any less disappointing.
The other part that's seriously disappointing is that none of the Republicans are pushing back against Obama based on this. I mean, they made it clear that, no matter what Obama wanted (even when he took previously-Republican positions), they were going to say no. But they haven't said no on this.
I almost wish Obama would use it against the GOP, so they could see how pernicious the whole situation is. Because apparently, as long as it isn't used on them personally, they have no problem with it.
Thomas Payne is certainly rolling over in his grave.
Saying that he welcomes the conversation. Yeah, that's why we needed a whistleblower to reveal what's been going on.
Saying that there are checks and balances. Yeah, the secret court that rubber stamps everything. And the Congress that knew everything about it, so they could keep it in check. It kills me how we're now finding out how some members of Congress were deliberately keeping others (most of the others) in the dark about what was going on. As if the administration hiding all possible knowledge wasn't bad enough.
Saying that there will be an independent review. Yeah, reviewed by a board appointed by the guy running the show. That shows independence. I wonder if they'll even be allowed to suggest any changes. And if they'll have the requisite clearance. And if they'll get honest answers to their questions.
I can't say that anything that's happened has been a huge surprise, but it certainly shows a serious lack of integrity on the part of just about everyone in the White House. And that definitely doesn't make it any less disappointing.
The other part that's seriously disappointing is that none of the Republicans are pushing back against Obama based on this. I mean, they made it clear that, no matter what Obama wanted (even when he took previously-Republican positions), they were going to say no. But they haven't said no on this.
I almost wish Obama would use it against the GOP, so they could see how pernicious the whole situation is. Because apparently, as long as it isn't used on them personally, they have no problem with it.
Thomas Payne is certainly rolling over in his grave.
20130618
Connecting Dots
I listened to Nina Totenberg's story about the FISA court this morning with some mixed feelings. There was some good information in there, but there were some very important things missed entirely.
There were two critical items missed. The first is that the FISA court approves almost all requests (99.97%, over the past five years. 100% over the past three. This is several thousand requests, including, apparently, at least one request to monitor everyone). So even if their purview has been limited, they haven't been fulfilling their duty within their sphere of operations.
The second point missed (repeatedly, actually) is that Congress doesn't have effective oversight. They should, but there is substantial evidence that the intelligence services have directly lied to Congress about what they are, or are not, doing.
For evidence of this, look at what Senators Wyden and Udall were saying during debate, the last time the Patriot Act came up for renewal. They knew (due to their positions on the Intelligence Committee) at least some of what was going on, and tried to tell others in Congress about it.
You could also listen to what a number of others (who were not on either of the Intelligence Committees) said during that debate, as it has been concretely contradicted by what has come out recently.
You could also check the testimony that the DNI recently gave, which he later admitted was "the least untrue" summary he could give. Yeah, we don't want "least untrue". We want the facts.
And one simple fact is that Congress has not been able to give effective oversight of these programs. (There is, of course, the follow on question of whether Congress would, if given the opportunity, and that would be a fair question. Color me skeptical, personally. But that's neither here nor there, at the moment.)
There were two critical items missed. The first is that the FISA court approves almost all requests (99.97%, over the past five years. 100% over the past three. This is several thousand requests, including, apparently, at least one request to monitor everyone). So even if their purview has been limited, they haven't been fulfilling their duty within their sphere of operations.
The second point missed (repeatedly, actually) is that Congress doesn't have effective oversight. They should, but there is substantial evidence that the intelligence services have directly lied to Congress about what they are, or are not, doing.
For evidence of this, look at what Senators Wyden and Udall were saying during debate, the last time the Patriot Act came up for renewal. They knew (due to their positions on the Intelligence Committee) at least some of what was going on, and tried to tell others in Congress about it.
You could also listen to what a number of others (who were not on either of the Intelligence Committees) said during that debate, as it has been concretely contradicted by what has come out recently.
You could also check the testimony that the DNI recently gave, which he later admitted was "the least untrue" summary he could give. Yeah, we don't want "least untrue". We want the facts.
And one simple fact is that Congress has not been able to give effective oversight of these programs. (There is, of course, the follow on question of whether Congress would, if given the opportunity, and that would be a fair question. Color me skeptical, personally. But that's neither here nor there, at the moment.)
20130607
And we should feel better, why, exactly?
Following up on the NSA getting call trap data from Verizon (and others, presumably), we find out the NSA (and FBI) is also getting all traffic flowing through a number of the larger web sites.
This is what I find particularly disturbing:
Which begs the question: what protections are in place to keep it from "unintentionally" getting data from US citizens? I'm betting on "nothing", personally (though I have no doubt the official answer is, "That's classified; trust us").
This is what I find particularly disturbing:
But James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said the program targets only foreigners. “It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States,”
Which begs the question: what protections are in place to keep it from "unintentionally" getting data from US citizens? I'm betting on "nothing", personally (though I have no doubt the official answer is, "That's classified; trust us").
20130606
If a tree falls in the forest, it is still heard
Well, it finally came out. No, I didn't know this was going on, but, given the hints I'd read (mostly via Greenwald), it doesn't surprise me a bit.
I really don't understand how the FISA court approved this. I really don't. Maybe the judges just don't appreciate how much you can make out of knowing everyone that people talk to. Think of the kind of "friend"ing graph you can build off of facebook data. Well, this allows you to do the same thing, except with a great deal more accuracy (since being "friend"ed on facebook might or might not mean anything, while talking to someone tells a lot more. Especially when there's more than one communication).
I wonder if this carpet-sweeping surveillance might have helped lead to the case against the Fox reporter (although, about that, I see almost no one noting how the warrants in that case seem pretty appropriately narrow).
Maybe now, Congress can debate whether to allow this kind of omnipresent information gathering. Maybe we can finally get rid of the AUMF and (supremely cynically-named) PATRIOT Act?
Oh, and maybe now the more mainstream media will pay a bit more attention to Greenwald? Ok, funny joke, but we can hope.
The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.
The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.
I really don't understand how the FISA court approved this. I really don't. Maybe the judges just don't appreciate how much you can make out of knowing everyone that people talk to. Think of the kind of "friend"ing graph you can build off of facebook data. Well, this allows you to do the same thing, except with a great deal more accuracy (since being "friend"ed on facebook might or might not mean anything, while talking to someone tells a lot more. Especially when there's more than one communication).
I wonder if this carpet-sweeping surveillance might have helped lead to the case against the Fox reporter (although, about that, I see almost no one noting how the warrants in that case seem pretty appropriately narrow).
Maybe now, Congress can debate whether to allow this kind of omnipresent information gathering. Maybe we can finally get rid of the AUMF and (supremely cynically-named) PATRIOT Act?
Oh, and maybe now the more mainstream media will pay a bit more attention to Greenwald? Ok, funny joke, but we can hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)