Former NSA Boss: We Don't Data Mine Our Giant Data Collection, We Just Ask It Questions
from the um,-that's-the-same-thing dept
General Michael Hayden, the former head of both the NSA and the CIA, has already been out making silly statements about how the real "harm" in the latest leaks is it shows that the US "can't keep a secret." However, he's now given an even more ridiculous interview trying to defend both the mass dragnet collection of all phone records and the PRISM collection of internet data. In both cases, some of his claims are quite incredible. Let's start with this whopper, in which he claims that they don't do any data mining on the mass dragnet data they collect, they just "ask it questions."HAYDEN: It is a successor to the activities we began after 9/11 on President Bush's authority, later became known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program.I'm not sure if Hayden is just playing dumb or what, but asking it questions is data mining. What he describes as asking it questions is exactly what people are afraid of. It's exactly the kind of data mining that people worry about. On top of that, just the fact that he flat out admits that they're putting together the haystack to "try to find the needle" is exactly the kind of issue that people are so concerned about. The whole point of the 4th Amendment is that you're not allowed to collect the haystack. You're only supposed to be able to, on narrow circumstances, go looking for the needle with proper oversight. Yet, here, he admits that there's no such oversight once they have that haystack:
So, NSA gets these record and puts them away, puts them in files. They are not touched. So, fears or accusations that the NSA then data mines or trolls through these records, they're just simply not true.
MARTIN: Why would you be collecting this information if you didn't want to use it?
HAYDEN: Well, that's - no, we're going to use it. But we're not going to use it in the way that some people fear. You put these records, you store them, you have them. It's kind of like, I've got the haystack now. And now let's try to find the needle. And you find the needle by asking that data a question. I'm sorry to put it that way, but that's fundamentally what happens. All right. You don't troll through the data looking for patterns or anything like that. The data is set aside. And now I go into that data with a question that - a question that is based on articulable(ph), arguable, predicate to a terrorist nexus. Sorry, long sentence.
MARTIN: May I back up? Do you have to have approval...That should be a "wow" moment right there, because it also appears to contradict President Obama's claim that "if anybody in government wanted to go further than just that top-line data ... they'd have to go back to a federal judge and — and — and indicate why, in fact, they were doing further — further probing." Furthermore, he's basically admitting that they basically give the FISA Court some vague reason why they need every possible record on phone calls, and then there's no oversight by the court on how those are used, other than vague promises from the NSA that they're not being abused for data mining -- but just for "asking questions," which is data mining.
HAYDEN: No.
MARTIN: ...from the FISA court...
HAYDEN: No.
MARTIN: ...which is the intelligence surveillance court established in order to go in and ask that question.
You have had a generalized approval, and so you've got to justify the overall approach to the judge. But you do not have to go to the judge, saying, hey, I got this number now. I'll go ahead and get a FISA request written up for you. No, you don't have to do that.
Moving on to PRISM. Hayden's responses are equally astounding. He's asked about the fact that the NSA has admitted that they try to make a determination of if the person is foreign and have a system to determine if they're 51% sure that a person is foreign in deciding whether or not to keep their data. As the interviewer notes, 51% "seems mushy." Hayden's response is ridiculous:
Yeah, well, actually, in some ways, you know, that's actually the literal definition of probable, in probable cause.Um, whether or not that's the standard for probable cause is meaningless. Probable cause is the standard used to determine if someone can be arrested (or to have a search done). It is not the standard for determining if the person is foreign or not, subjecting them to mass surveillance by the NSA. The 4th Amendment requires probable cause for a search, but not probable cause in foreignness, rather probable cause in criminal activity. Is Hayden honestly suggesting that being foreign is probable cause of criminality? Because that's insane.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: data mining, michael hayden, nsa, nsa surveillance, probable cause, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This must be killing you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LMAO! I have tried for YEARS to get Mike to discuss his posts on the merits. He has proved hundreds and hundreds of times that he's incapable/unwilling to back up what he publishes. I LOVE the excuses you guys make for why he's too dishonest and chicken shit to defend what he writes. It's awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every post you make is treated as derailing as it is richly deserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 5-year-old throwing a tantrum and spamming the word milk? The troll who has nothing to say about whine about the phrase being used to accurately describe the situation? The insane person who can barely form a coherent thought before launching into inanity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's no need to comment on that anymore. Just hit the "report" button and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course Mike thinks it violates the Fourth Amendment. He's waiting for someone to give a plausible reason why so he can repeat it ad nauseam. .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/06/nsas-prism-surveillance- program-flouts-fourth-amendment
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/06/11/fourth-amendment-violat ions-and-big-brother-all-rolled-into-one/
Maybe you could just read the linked articles when Mike does talk about PRISM, but that would actually be work, wouldn't it? Here are some more articles discussing it, though I know you won't bother clicking them. Admit it, you're just trolling, which makes you unworthy of anyone's time or effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.outlookseries.com/A0988/Security/3896_Jameel_Jaffer_ACLU_NSA_PRISM_Violates_F irst_Fourth_ Amendment_Rights_Jameel_Jaffer.htm
That just makes the conclusory statement that PRISM "violates . . . the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment." Just like the ACLU's complaint, it doesn't even begin to do any analysis of the claim. It just states the claim without any analysis whatsoever.
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/06/nsas-prism-surveillance- program-flouts-fourth-amendment
That just makes a similar unfounded claim that PRISM "violates the spirit of the Fourth Amendment," whatever that means. There is no analysis whatsoever.
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/06/11/fourth-amendment-violations-and-big-brother -all-rolled-into-one/
That one makes a curious claim: "However, the government must show that there was �probable cause� for the search, meaning some form of evidence must be brought forth showing that there�s good reason to suspect an individual of a particular transgression, and only then can said search be deemed Constitutional." No citation is provided for the claim that probable cause is the standard, nor is it clear that this is even a search. See Smith v. Maryland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
I don't know whether it violates the Fourth Amendment. I'd have to spend a day or two researching and thinking about it. I took Con Crim Pro a few years ago, and I'd have to refresh myself on the nuances. But I haven't seen anyone actually make the argument that it does. If someone has some actual analysis, I'd love to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I realize that layer upon layer of lawyering has hopelessly confused much, if not most, of the Constitution and is the primary way that the government evades clear Constitutional mandates. And for this reason, case law and deep analysis should be viewed with a powerfully cynical eye.
I think the onus isn't on us to show how it's unconstitutional, though. The onus is on the government to show why it is Constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When I get tired of reading about, I'll just stop reading about it, which some people here can't seem to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA surveillance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Argh. It was there, but bad HTML swallowed it... Fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Douchebag...!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was raised that you ALWAYS take responsibility for your actions, and I do.
I mess up at work, and I will flat out say it. "I messed up, it won't happen again!"
I get pulled over by a cop and he asks "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "Yes Sir" I say, "I was doing 78 in a 65."
No need to hide anything.
Oh and their ass isn't against the wall. Hell they will probably get raises and promotions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some minion must've told him that they ran some SQL queries on the data. Now marvel that the wonders of the PHB brain:
1. Query == Question.
2. We make queries on the data.
Result: We ask the data questions.
* facepalm *
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People don't drive cars, they just turn a wheel and press on petals. Cars, drive themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citation needed. Do you have any actual analysis, or just more of your trademarked conclusory statements?
"The 4th Amendment requires probable cause for a search, but not probable cause in foreignness, rather probable cause in criminal activity. Is Hayden honestly suggesting that being foreign is probable cause of criminality? Because that's insane."
I think you missed the point. If they are probably foreign, then the Fourth Amendment probably doesn't apply to them. So they don't need probable cause, or other, to search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probabilistic overload.
I see a lot of 'maybes' as justification to trample the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Citation needed. Do you have any actual analysis, or just more of your trademarked conclusory statements?"
Uh, the 4th Amendment is that citation.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Specifically you have to be SPECIFIC if you want to collect data on someone. Not, collect everything and then be specific about what you ask the collection of data at a later date about last week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about some case law? What about the third-party doctrine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not true:
(from here: http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro01.htm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Fourth Amendment is not specifically limited to citizens. For Fourth Amendment purposes, the word �people� encompasses non-citizens who have �developed sufficient connection� with the United States to be considered part of the �national community.� United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
The 14th Amendment made the 4th Amendment apply to everyone within the borders of the US, not just citizens. This was kinda the point of the 14th Amendment. Some states, after the American Civil War, thought that they would infringe on the rights of the African-American slaves because they weren't citizens. The 14th Amendment made the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, whether or not they were citizens.
Your case study appears to make it even broader than the borders of the US, as anyone outside of the US, not a citizen, but with sufficient connection to the US as protected by the Constitution as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4th amendment applies to everyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 4th amendment applies to everyone
IF the 4th amendment doesn't apply to foreigners, then it wouldn't apply to them because they ARE foreign, not PROBABLY foreign. Probability of being foreign nothing to do with whether a search or seizure of private data is justified when no probable cause for wrong doing is able to be presented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, well, actually, in some ways, you know, that's actually the literal definition of probable, in probable cause."
I'm 51% sure he's full of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I remember my basic intro to law/court classes right, the only time 51% matters is in civil cases, not criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And as you just proved, 51% isn't very certain. You're just wrong here. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is what you need to convict someone of a crime, which is NOT the same as probable cause, which you can use to get a warrant. If the standard was the same for both, then warrants would be pointless, since you'd already have enough evidence to convict the person.
According to Wikipedia, one definition of probable cause is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So POTUS lied, then?
I mean I'm sure he lies all the time, but forget the campaign lies and little fudgings here and there and your every day equivocation, or the lies about what some proposed policy is going to do and then changing it later to do something else kind of lies
He directly lied to the American people point blank about existing policy, the very policy he's under fire for.
Said in no uncertain terms "This policy doesn't do that, it only does this," when in fact it did EXACTLY THAT.
Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So POTUS lied, then?
Hayden was talking about asking questions about the meta-data. The President said that after querying the meta-data if they want to actually tap that phone number, then they have to go back and get a warrant.
Hayden wasn't saying that at all.
I'd argue it's bad that they can query the data all they want without oversight, but it isn't content which is what the President was talking about.
At least it isn't content that we know of...yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So POTUS lied, then?
Yeah, that's much better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So POTUS lied, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So POTUS lied, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So POTUS lied, then?
Yes, even though the distinction is completely unimportant. He wants to convince everyone that spying on the metadata is somehow not spying and is perfectly fine, when in fact it's fully as invasive, if not more so, than actually listening to the calls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So POTUS lied, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So POTUS lied, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NPR interview: soft, safe, sane voice, no confrontation.
The major problem that when everyone is to blame, no one is to blame. Any anger is slowly but surely being diffused and de-fused, then all will go on as before.
And it's being ROLLED BACK (including Mike excusing Google!) as I've predicted for a LIMITED HANGOUT psyop:
Is Edward Snowden's story unravelling? Why the Guardian's scoop is looking a bit dodgy
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100221535/is-edward-snowdens-story-unravelling -why-the-guardians-scoop-is-looking-a-bit-dodgy/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NPR interview: soft, safe, sane voice, no confrontation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NPR interview: soft, safe, sane voice, no confrontation.
The third, and last, point it makes is this:
There is such a public tool called Prism, however the company that makes it states without qualification that their software has absolutely nothing to do with the NSA Prism project.
The Telegraph article is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NPR interview: soft, safe, sane voice, no confrontation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is the government we're talking about - 51% accuracy is an acheivment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Flip a coin.
Tails: you are a foreigner.
Heads: you are not.
But seriously, what Hayden was saying about probable cause is troubling. Probable cause should be several steps above a coin toss. Being 51% sure is not enough. If we start going down that path, we might as well start issuing law enforcement some magic 8-balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Flip a coin.
Tails: you are a foreigner.
Heads: you are not.
Maybe it's more like this:
Tails: you are a foreigner,
Heads: flip again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heads: your a foreigner.
And they use a two-headed coin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009YEMW6S/ref=mas_faad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starting a new grassroots campaign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
80/20 rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It depends upon what the definition if "is" is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It depends upon what the definition if "is" is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft makes the the Xbox One
Xbox One is equipped with an always online with a camera.
So by the transitive property...
The government wants to watch me in my underwear while I check my email and order a pizza?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Type of Data Mining
As for the Google type analysis, that is proven to not work against terrorism because of the problem with false positives.
Let's say the NSA has a system that correctly flags terrorists 99% of the time. Let's also say that this system only gets it wrong (flags an innocent person) 1% of the time. Pretty good yes? No. There are around 300 million people in the US. For sake of argument let's say that there are 300 potential terrorists running around. Under the NSA's system they would correctly flag 297 of those terrorists. Not bad. The problem is they would also flag 3 million innocent people as being terrorists. Who are those 297 real terrorist among the 3 million innocents? False positives for targeted advertising is no big deal. For catching terrorists it is.
Big data mining systems for catching terrorists just can't work. And the NSA knows this. So the purpose of this data collection is either something else or it just doesn't work. Like persecuting a political opponent if he's done something to irritate you or someone else in the administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably cause?
But we're talking law, where just about everything means something other than what the literal definition of the words are.
It seems to me that 51% is not "probable cause" but is more like "reasonable suspicion".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably cause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]