US Official Admits Spying On US Phone Calls & Internet Had Nothing To Do With Latest Terror Alert

from the but-of-course dept

Wed, Aug 7th 2013 12:37pm — Mike Masnick

As we already noted, defenders of the NSA's mass dragnet collection of data on Americans, such as Senator Saxby Chambliss, have used the latest terror alerts to justify those programs, claiming:

They are what lead us to have the - or allow us to have the ability to gather this chatter that I referred to. If we did not have these programs, then we simply wouldn't be able to listen in on the bad guys.

Right, so that's a direct claim that these programs -- the Patriot Act Section 215 hoovering up of all metadata and the FISA Amendments Act Section 702 access to data from internet companies -- are apparently necessary to catch the communications from leaders in Al Qaeda that resulted in the terror warnings. That seems dubious for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is that it seems pretty clear that any terrorist with more than a couple of brain cells already knows to avoid anything that might trigger such programs). And, of course, now it's come out that the alert came about because of an intercepted conference call, but that doesn't mean it came via these programs And, indeed, buried in an AP article about the terror alert is this little tidbit:

But an intelligence official said the controversial NSA programs that gather data on American phone calls or track Internet communications with suspected terrorists played no part in detecting the initial tip.

In other words, it would appear that Chambliss flat out lied to defend these programs. I guess we can just add that one to the ever growing list.

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: al qaeda, nsa surveillance, section 215, section 702

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Machin Shin (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:02pm

Do you really think the leaders of these organizations have gone from hiding in a compounds and using only trusted messengers that hand deliver messages, to instead just grabbing nearest phone and setting up a conference call? Next they are going to want me to believe they intercepted a top terrorists Skype video conference.

Something really does not add up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:08pm

This again stresses why the government and officials can not be trusted to tell the truth about the spying matters. The longer this goes on the more is revealed through the mistakes in omissions and admissions that these programs are not what they were said to be.

It also reflects when they actually have something that everyone will believe they are once again crying wolf. I've lost all respect and trust in this government to actually do what they are supposed to do.

I keep wondering what else is going to be revealed that hasn't been talked about and what else is of real domestic importance that's being lied about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glen, 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:08pm

What would be really priceless is to get a video of someone showing these representatives articles that show their BS being called and getting their responses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skye Media Group, 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:11pm

Re: messengers
lol. This is SO true. Making these kinds of admissions may just be propaganda. Its just feels TOO obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: messengers
I think they had a plan to use this, to justify the NSA spying, but didn't expect all this scrutiny, people saying "oh yeah isn't this convenient for the NSA", or people predicting what play comes next.

First time we have seen transparency from this administration ... to bad it was their ass backward plan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:10pm

Intercepted Conference Calls
It's not that intelligence agencies lie, it's that they lie so poorly and with so little imagination. Doubtless they got this particular idea from when the FBI had one of their own conference calls intercepted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FM Hilton, 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:21pm

Simple rule
They must really think that not only are Americans stupid, but any potential terrorist.

After all, the bad guys read papers, too.

"Oh,look, they have another article in the Guardian. Guess we won't be using Skype, will we?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FormerAC (profile), 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:23pm

To me it feels like these latest "terror alerts" are just misdirection. See, we need to spy on you, and this is why. OF course, I might be a little cynical by now ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lurker Keith, 7 Aug 2013 @ 2:24pm

Amazing
You mean to tell me that they admitted the obvious? That they didn't have to illegally collect an American's data to get info from 2 terrorists in foreign countries?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 3:21pm

And they wonder why we don't just trust them. Time and time again they have proved themselves to be liars, think themselves above the law and abuse our trust. This is why they need some supervision or to be kicked out. They act like thugs and then tell us that it is really okay, because they are the good guys.
These "good guys" sure do alot of shitty, bad and ugly stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 3:29pm

Re: Simple rule
I have heard about a few alternative VOIP programs. The problem I always run into is thinking about getting the folks I want to talk to, to move over to a new program, or be willing to have two running in the background. I wound up with Gtalk and Skype both there. I get a better experience with Gtalk, but can't move those contacts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 3:46pm

'it would appear that Chambliss flat out lied to defend these programs'

and probably hasn't got a damn clue what he's talking about
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 3:56pm

This picture sums it all up
Ran across pic on the internetwebtubes (not sure who gets credit for it).

https://sphotos-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1148739_10151573576228870_1376726810_n.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2013 @ 7:15pm

Rainmaker con
Watch for the basic rainmaker con -- See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Rainmaking. One example was use in Season Three of The Wire. Clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxQw0VoT538

Basically, once I've convinced you of my power over rain, you have two options.
1) It rains, and you should pay me for making it happen.
2) It doesn't rain, and you should pay me to make it happen.

Something similar happens with US National Security politics. Once people are frightened and convinced of the power and necessity of anti-terror agencies, people have two options:
1) If there is no terrorist attack, people should continue this success by supporting expanded powers and funding for the agencies that "prevented" it.
2) If there is a terrorist attack, people should prevent future attacks by supporting expanded powers and funding for the agencies that will "prevent" it in the future.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
(How about a nice game of chess?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
no, 7 Aug 2013 @ 8:50pm

Re: Amazing
PRISM isn't just forspying on Americans, it's for spying on other countries too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
derp, 8 Aug 2013 @ 2:20am

Re:
Here's a doosey: the fascists didn't lose WWII, they just changed shirts and went low-key for a while.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
derp, 8 Aug 2013 @ 2:39am

Re: This picture sums it all up
http://www.silverdoctors.com/js-kim-all-official-economic-statistics-today-are-propaganda/

The Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda is hard at work still today!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
InformedUSCitizen, 8 Aug 2013 @ 2:46am

Joseph Nacchio QWEST jailed for insider trading months before 9/11, the reason why? The US Govt pulled their contracts with QWEST when he refused to allow NSA inside access. He shorted his stocks knowing no contracts the company was going to end. They been spying longer than most think. Try 1920's with telegraph interceptions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 8 Aug 2013 @ 4:01am

And thus the question remains unanswered: if these programs did nothing to stop any plots, why are they being that defended?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 8 Aug 2013 @ 5:48am

Think "Boondoggle" and "revolving door," and it all becomes clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2013 @ 7:16am

Re:
Because they keep TPTB in office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shon Gale, 8 Aug 2013 @ 7:44am

I am totally amazed at the fact the US government is in a position of being controlled absolutely by Al-Qaeda. They controlled the governments actions entirely. I laugh! All it took to shut down the US presence in the Middle East was one phone call. I truly laugh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 19 Aug 2013 @ 12:10pm

Re:
Do you think clues that reveal a few parts of the picture (not the initial tip nor the whole conference) can't be important and potentially key to stopping an attack?
[ link to this | view in thread ]