NY Times Reveals NSA Searches All Emails In & Out Of The US; Will It Offer Up Its Source For Prosecution?
from the just-wondering dept
This morning, the NY Times' Charlie Savage broke yet another story concerning the NSA domestic surveillance efforts, revealing that... the NSA does a scan of every email going in or out of the US:The National Security Agency is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans’ e-mail and text communications into and out of the country, hunting for people who mention information about foreigners under surveillance, according to intelligence officials.Again this is the kind of thing that many people had assumed was going on, but it hadn't been confirmed until now. Of course, the NSA's response was not to talk about whether or not this was true, but to claim, yet again, that everything it's doing is "authorized," which is a way of deflecting the fact that it's almost certainly unconstitutional. In this case, the claim is that the NSA isn't storing these emails, but rather: "temporarily copying and then sifting through the contents of what is apparently most e-mails and other text-based communications that cross the border," and the whole process only takes "a small number of seconds" before the records are deleted.
The N.S.A. is not just intercepting the communications of Americans who are in direct contact with foreigners targeted overseas, a practice that government officials have openly acknowledged. It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official.
This report raises a whole bunch of issues, but let's focus on two of them:
- Right, so remember that last post, where Barack Obama claimed that there is no domestic spying program? Yeah, so about that... Here's a bit more evidence of just what a lie that is.
- Here's the bigger one, though. Just yesterday, the NY Times published an astounding editorial that suggests that the US should punish Russia for not sending Ed Snowden back. It is effectively calling for the prosecution of a key whistleblower concerning NSA surveillance.
So, I'm wondering, does the NY Times editorial board believe that Charlie Savage's source -- who is revealing information not unlike that which Snowden revealed -- shouldn't be protected, should be revealed and should be prosecuted? Because I would imagine that both Savage and that source would find that very uncomfortable. At this point, if you're a government whistleblower, why would you ever go to a reporter at the NY Times when they're supportive of prosecuting sources and whistleblowers?
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: charlie savage, email, nsa, nsa surveillance, searches, sources, whitleblowers
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is far more likely is that emails from other countries like Canada or other close neighbors will come into to the US before being sent back to their country of origin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hell, given the way that this is so egregious with regards to the Constitution I'd say that it's fairly safe to say that we've about got an entirely different country functioning within our own, a parasite.
So, yeah, everything is foreign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High Court Low Court ... or rather ... High Corp, Low Corp
The issue is that bloggers are not reporters in the eye's of the government or the Newspapers, they are treated differently. Anyone going outside of officially approved and supported (reads controllable) channels is to be persecuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Court Low Court ... or rather ... High Corp, Low Corp
The issue is that bloggers are not reporters, and all leakers are not created equal. In the eye's of the government and the newspapers they are treated differently. Anyone going outside of officially approved and supported (reads controllable) channels, is to be persecuted and discredited in anyway possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As i live in the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As i live in the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As i live in the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a "bit more evidence" of a spying corporation: APPLE.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/08/ios7_tracking_now_its_a_favourite_feature/
WHY does corporate spying get NO attention here?* Don't forget it's SOURCES for NSA.
[* And don't try the baloney that you can opt-out! You've no evidence at all that corporations honor those settings, besides that self-identifying as not wanting to be tracked means you're worth tracking. All corporate spying should definitely be opt-IN only.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a "bit more evidence" of a spying corporation: APPLE.
I picture the questions ....
[ ] Do you agree to allow us to forward all your emails to the NSE, DEA, FBI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a "bit more evidence" of a spying corporation: APPLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a "bit more evidence" of a spying corporation: APPLE.
don't do business with corporations; go back to your hippy commune
there are ways to protect your privacy from a corporation; why are you so dense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a "bit more evidence" of a spying corporation: APPLE.
don't do business with corporations; go back to your hippy commune
there are ways to protect your privacy from a corporation; why are you so dense
This Man Has Alittledick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a "bit more evidence" of a spying corporation: APPLE.
Huh?? What settings are you talking about? You opt out by not using their services. For completeness, you can also block all traffic to their servers. No part of this involves corporations "honoring" anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a "bit more evidence" of a spying corporation: APPLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In many ways not storing all emails intercepted is worse, as it means that only 'evidence' of wrong doing is kept, and all the surrounding emails that would clear a suspect are lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would imagine that there is a robust gradient retention scale too - prostitution, drugs, anarchy, sedition, activism, theft, infringement, abortion, taxation, guns, disease .. where everything is graded and treated accordingly and, as we've seen, forwarded as appropriate. Yah, and the Arab Spring was a shocker.?.
Unless the Time's source is Snowden, who's already accounted for, I think we can pretty much consider this source to be a "target".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Source: RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Times shows why it's a has been paper
The NYTimes fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won to publish the Pentagon papers.
Now, the NYTimes had a chance to publish Bradley Mannings leaks, did they? No. Do they support Edward Snowden despite their concerns over all the privacy violations his leaks reveal? No, they want him prosecuted.
The NYTimes has basically become another typical US news agency that frequently sucks up to the government and does what it wants. That's why other then their 538 Nate Silver section, I rarely read the NYTimes anymore.
And heck, even the NYTimes feelings towards Nate Silver shows how the NYTimes has fallen. A lot of their old reporters hated the young hot shot who came in and basically said "all your stories saying anyone could win this election are bogus, the polls and other numbers prove it" with his models predicting Obama would win in 2012.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, just opt out!
Just opt out of having a phone.
No need for Internet access.
No need for electronic banking.
No need for credit or debit transactions.
No need to have a car.
No need for electric power.
No need for air travel.
The corporations have no power over you. Get your self some land, a few animals and patent free seeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really, just opt out!
In the US, if you don't have a car, you're hugely disadvantaged.
Electricity and gas help power basics of pretty much everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really, just opt out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insider Threat Program defeat?
Most interesting is the above "source". Seems to make a timely mockery of Obama's "See Something, Say Something" program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
Honestly, this exposure of the domestic spying program sounds like it could hurt a hell of a lot more than pretty much any of the info released from Snowden's data so far.
If that's the case, I just gained a little more respect for Snowden, and am even more disgusted by the US government.
It feels like there's whole surveillance house of cards that has been set up over the last decade, and it's slowly but steadily falling apart.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm
Oh, over a lot longer than just the last decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
email spy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]