Loophole Shows That, Yes, NSA Has 'Authority' To Spy On Americans -- Directly In Contrast With Public Statements

from the and,-another-one dept

Fri, Aug 9th 2013 9:53am — Mike Masnick

Right, so remember that claim yesterday from Barack Obama about how there is no domestic surveillance program? And remember in our post we noted that such a statement might come back to bite him, seeing that Snowden had leaked somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 more documents to Glenn Greenwald and somewhere in there, it seemed like there was a decent chance there was evidence that Obama was lying? Right, so, funny story... this morning, James Ball and Spencer Ackerman over at the Guardian have published the details of a neat little loophole that does, in fact, give the NSA "authority" to run searches on Americans without any kind of warrant. This is due to a "rule change" in 2011.

The focus here is on Section 702 under the FISA Amendments Act, which is the authority that the PRISM program is under. Ever since the initial leaks, the defenders of the NSA have repeatedly stated that 702 only applies to non-US citizens who are outside the US. But as the "update" above notes, there was a change to the rules in late 2011 which allows for queries on US persons. As Senator Wyden told the Guardian, this "loophole" now directly allows "warrantless searches for the phone calls or emails of law-abiding Americans."

This also seems reminiscent of our point on Wednesday, in which we noted that every time the NSA is asked about its ability to spy on everyone, it answers about its authority. And, here's evidence that it has clearly been given the "authority" to spy on Americans, contrary to the very clear language of the law.

Also, the timing of this seems interesting. Earlier, we'd noted that the NSA's massive data collection program, Stellar Wind, had been shut down in 2011. And... right about that time suddenly a new law is put in place allowing 702 searches to happen on US persons? I'm sure that's just a complete coincidence...

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: 702, backdoor searches, domestic surveillance, faa, fisa amendments act, loophole, nsa, nsa surveillance, ron wyden, surveillance, us persons

29 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 9:57am

Wow. Just wow.

Let me guess about the ramifications regarding all the lies we've been fed since the leaks...no consequences for anyone right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  Without resorting to the "revenge porn of the nutjobs" kind of consequences, no.
  
  Which would be both the only wrong response, and perhaps the only available response.
  
  Think on that. A revolution is rapidly becoming a necessity in one of the most "stable" 'democracies' in the world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Without resorting to the "revenge porn of the nutjobs" kind of consequences, no.
    
    At this point, I'd settle for at least someone bringing charges against them. We all know how punishment works for the "haves" (there is none). But at least making them go through the process would be a welcome change.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  Nah, there's going to be consequences alright. To the Guardian and Snowden for leaking that info.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Harrill (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 9:59am

Indictments...
So exactly how does one convince their Congress-critter to file charges for lying to Congress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: Indictments...
  It's the old question, who rules the rulers, who judges the judges etc.. The 3-Powers setup (Judiciary, Legislative and Executive) was supposed to prevent one of them from going rogue. Yeah...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re: Indictments...
    In this case the 3-power setup has been more or less put out of power:
    
    The judiciary is a "secret court" with no real connection to the real judiciary.
    
    The legislative is a select few from congress who can deny the rest of the legislative access on account of their field being littered with confidential and secret information. The system relies on the priviledged giving access to relevant information for a subject to be actually discussed and that is not happening.
    
    The executive is only truely accountable to the people and since this field is covered in information that cannot legally be shared with the people, there is no real limit to their suggestions if they can keep the legislative select few greased.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Indictments...
  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  
  and then more
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RyanNerd (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:06am

Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
And thus we see the shredding of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
  Tangent: I though Jedi had a mind trick, and Vulcan had a neck pinch?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 11:08am
    
    Re: Re: Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
    Vulcan's have Mind Meld
    
    Jedi have Mind Trick
    
    ...
    
    I feel sad now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 11:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
      This is a reference to Obama's jumbled reference:
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/13402222194/white-house-turns-star-wars-star -trek-mistake-into-funny-meme.shtml
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re: Apparently Obama can use a Vulcan Mind Trick
    Obama mixed up metaphors a while back.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/01/173251266/jedi-vulcan-mind-meld-mind-trick-wha t-was-obama-thinking
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:22am

It does say they can't run USP queries?
am i reading it wrong? it says they can run USP queries but that they cant until the right oversight has been sorted out. Or am i reading it worng. I mean obviously i dont suppose the right oversight has been sorted out and dont know enough about your constitution to know whether saying 'you can, but not yet' is the bad thing.
Personally i think this whole NSA/GCHQ thing is awful and i will continue to vote Green as much as i can but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: It does say they can't run USP queries?
  You're making the mistake of assuming that the oversight is actually present.
  
  Hint: it's not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: It does say they can't run USP queries?
  You better read the Guardian article for a better understanding of the subject, but the gist of it is this:
  
  The NSA et al told us can't run queries on American citizens under the PRISM program unless they were in direct contact with foreigners. PRISM is directed at foreigners and foreign contacts, they claimed.
  
  Well, this new tidbit shreds that notion because it points out that in 2011 there was a rule change that allows specific US persons to be targeted. You see the inconsistency between the statements and the reality?
  
  At least they bothered to try to implement some sort of oversight over this program, but I doubt it was in any way effective, given their track record as of late...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 11:31am
    
    Re: Re: It does say they can't run USP queries?
    IF they did try to implement some sort of oversight I'm sure it's all lip service like the PCLOB just so they can say, "Look. We have an oversight program for this."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: It does say they can't run USP queries?
  It says ANALYSTS (ie. contractors) can't run queries on USP's until THE NSA comes up with an oversight program that is approved by the DOJ and ODNI. It says nothing about the NSA itself being prohibited from running queries without the oversight process in place. But if the NSA gets to create the oversight process, then there really isn't much point to it then is there. That's like my 6 year old daughter getting to decide if she should be punished for doing something she's not supposed to do. And the DOJ and ODNI having to approve it doesn't make it any better. They never benefit from the power of the access to NSA data and have perfectly clean history of not never abusing power and instead telling the NSA, "Oh no, that's TMI. We don't want to be able to know any of that stuff." Riiiiiiiight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:38am

This is why Patriot Act and FISA need to be repealed, and start over from scratch, by building strong and specific restrictions for the NSA, and stronger privacy for us.

Snowden was right. If it's just "policy", that policy can change with different leaders, or even under the same leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vidiot (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 10:59am

More fundamental question
This raises the semantic issue of "lawmaking" vs. "rulemaking". The Patriot Act (clue: "Act") was an enacted law, with, for better or worse, at least a modicum of publicly-witnessed debate; can its fundamental provisions be oh-by-the-way amended by a mere rules change? How far can "rules" go in shaping policy and practice, before the scope is exceeded, and the only remedy is to amend or enact an actual law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saulgoode (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 11:10am

Wrong loophole
I don't buy that collecting all the data on U.S. cititzens is consistent with the Constitution, regardless whatever oversights or limitations may be in place concerning the querying of the resultant database.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob, 9 Aug 2013 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re: Wrong loophole
  "I don't buy that collecting all the data on U.S. cititzens is consistent with the Constitution"
  
  So? Like it's been for a while now: You can't prove they're collecting data on anyone because that's a state secret. Therefore no one has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the data collection. Something can't be ruled unconstitutional until it's challenged. Ergo, whether or not this is consistent with the Constitution is moot.
  
  And even that doesn't matter. Secret court doesn't care what we think is constitutional even if we had a truckload of proof.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 11:22am

and the name of who gave this 'new' permission? whoever it was wants to be hauled over the coals about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mc, 9 Aug 2013 @ 12:30pm

Law abiding?
"warrantless searches for the phone calls or emails of law-abiding Americans."

Law-abiding? It doesn't matter *what* you've done or which laws you've broken, a warrant is __still__ required by the only law that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2013 @ 2:10pm

Secret court is secret. The more that comes out the more complacent the population becomes. This is revolting! and I do mean it's time for revolt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 9 Aug 2013 @ 6:17pm

I'm vaguely amused that PINWHALE comes in "Sweet* and Sour*".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bruce, 10 Aug 2013 @ 11:06am

NONE Of them.
What contention by Obaminions HASN'T Been A LIE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lurker Keith, 12 Aug 2013 @ 2:39am
  
  Re: NONE Of them.
  The cake?
  
  Sorry, couldn't resist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jose_X, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:09pm

Rule or exception?
Where was the rule? Does it allow queries of any sort on any person for any reason?

Or might it be something akin to the warrantless search exception?

Honestly, is that information public or are we assuming at this point in time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]