Snowden Rebuts Sen. Feinstein's Claims That The NSA's Metadata Collection Is 'Not Surveillance'
from the yeah,-i-know.-and-a-collection-is-not-a-collection.-got-it. dept
Ed Snowden has briefly stepped up to the mic to rebut Dianne Feinstein's claims that the NSA's bulk phone records collections are "not surveillance." While he didn't specifically name Feinstein, it's pretty clear who his comments are directed towards, what with the senator putting in overtime over the past few weeks defending the agency's cherished but useless Section 215 collections haystacks that are definitely not collections (according to the Intelligence Dictionary.)
"Today, no telephone in America makes a call without leaving a record with the NSA. Today, no Internet transaction enters or leaves America without passing through the NSA's hands," Snowden said in a statement Thursday.Her op-ed for the USA Today stated the following:
"Our representatives in Congress tell us this is not surveillance. They're wrong."
The call-records program is not surveillance.Why is it not surveillance? Feinstein claimed, in direct contradiction to someone who's seen most of the inner workings of the agency's programs, that because it doesn't sweep up communications or names, it isn't surveillance. Also, she pointed out that surveillance or not, it's legal. So there.
Maybe Feinstein considers the term "surveillance" to mean something closer to the old school interpretation -- shadowy figures in unmarked vans wearing headphones and peering through binoculars.
Of course, this kind of surveillance contained many elements completely eliminated by the combination of the PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act, and a very charitable reading of the Third Party Doctrine. You know, the sort of stuff those shadowy men used to utilize: warrants, targeted investigations, reasonable suspicion, a grudging working relationship with the Fourth Amendment…
That's all gone now. The courts have declared that sweeping up business records on millions of Americans is no more a violation of the Fourth Amendment than gathering metadata on a single person. The NSA has warped the definition of "surveillance" just as surely as they've warped the definition of "relevant." The wholesale, untargeted gathering of millions of "transactions" from internet and phone activity doesn't seem to resemble what anyone might historically think of as "surveillance," but it's surveillance nonetheless.
Sure, the NSA may not look at everything it gathers, but it has the capability to do so and it shows no interest in letting any of its dragnets be taken out of commission. The NSA's defenders downplay the agency's many intrusions by first playing the "legal" and "oversight" cards and, when those fail to impress, belittle their critics by trotting out condescending statements like, "The NSA isn't interested in Grandma's birthday phone call or the cat videos you email to your friends."
Well, no shit. We're hardly interested in that, either. We're not worried about the NSA looking through tons of inane interactions. We know it doesn't have the time or inclination to do so. We're more concerned it's looking at the stuff it finds interesting and amassing databases full of "suspicious" persons by relying on algorithms and keywords -- a fallible process that robs everything of context and turns slightly pointed hay into the needles it so desperately needs to justify its existence.
What makes this even more frightening is that the agency then hands this unfiltered, untargeted, massive collection of data off to other agencies, not only in the US but in other countries, subjecting innocent Americans' data to new algorithms, keywords and mentalities, increasing the possibility of false positives.
But what we're mainly concerned about is the fact that an agency that claims its doing this to combat terrorism can't seem to come up with much evidence that its programs are working. The NSA has deprived us of civil liberties while delivering next to nothing in terms of security. Americans have been sold out to a data-hungry beast, and even if it's not officially "surveillance," it's still completely unacceptable.
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: bulk collection, dianne feinstein, ed snowden, nsa, nsa surveillance, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Newspeak dictionary
Surveillance --> Collecting Metadata
Whistleblower --> Terrorist
Leaks --> Espionage
Oversight --> Rubber Stamps with no adversarial counterweight
Lack of Due Process --> Secret courts, secret proceedings
Rule of Law --> Secret Laws, Secret Interpretations of laws, copyrighted laws, and coming soon... patented laws.
Political Prisoner --> Traitor
Respecting National Sovereignty --> Secret arrests and extraditions
Humane Treatment --> Secret prisons off US soil with little/no oversight and no representation
Transparency --> Lies so obvious you can see through them, or doing something illegal/unethical/immoral and hiding it in plain sight so you cannot see it
Big Brother --> Homeland Security
The US has always been at war with Al Qaeda. The US has never been at war with Iraq.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Newspeak dictionary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Newspeak dictionary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
she thinks the ends justifies the means
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/SARC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That sets quite a precedence. ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In a certain respect Feinstein is correct, based on the current legal definition of "surveillance", this is not surveillance and it is legal.
This is the type of "under the current definition" shit that got black's labeled as non human and now the unborn are being labeled as non human.
The same type of water muddying that has screwed everyone's idea of what the 2nd amendment stood for despite being make crystal fvcking clear by the founding fathers what it all means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People can collect all information about a person and know what the color of their underwear is, but that is not surveillance not at all.
I also am not human, I am a flying pig.
My wife realized something today, she bought a new phone, it had nothing in it, the minute she registered her old account the phone suddenly had all her apps download and installed, her calls records, videos, photos, emails all restored, just like magic and for a minute it was all good until she realized what that meant, all her data stored on her phone was duplicated and stored somewhere else without her knowing about or having to set up anything.
Now she is scared of using it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Feinstein is wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Define
- the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime.
One could argue that they aren't being careful, therefore what they are doing is not actually surveillance. =P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What are your thoughts on Mormonism?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets just face facts here !!!
Or don't facts have a place here ? Guess not. Just pure hate for the US Government, antidisestablishmentarianism at its best.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reading this stuff is crazy. Its like pointing at a coffee cup and saying its not a coffee cup because some old white dumb fuck said so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
. . . it's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Might be YOUR "main concern." Not Mine.
No, that's not what I'm mainly concerned about. I don't care if the program(s) work. I don't care if the surveillance allows DHS, the NSA, the CIA and the FBI to thwart 50 attacks each.
I care that people without provable guilt are being searched and their records/papers retained without due process of law, and without a warrant having been obtained as a result of sworn testimony.
I'm most concerned that the federal government is depriving us of civil liberties. Period. Full Stop.
Haven't I read right here on this very blog that we could prevent a lot more crime by installing cameras on every corner and stationing police in every home, but that approach is simply unacceptable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No need to be scared. She can turn off the syncing, avoid using the Google apps, and even install a firewall and block all access to Google completely if she wants to.
She can also go to Google's account management page to delete all of the data that's already been synced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
back door
So if I backdoor into a government agency and collect data but don't look at it, it is legal because it is not surveillance or an invasion of privacy? Then I can sell it as long as I don�t know what I am selling? This seems like a bad move on there part.
�The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures�� metadata is my effect isn�t it?
"(The right to privacy is a person's) right to be left alone by the government... the right most valued by civilized men."
- Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't get caught up in the technicalities - it's surveillance
Suppose you walked out your front door one morning and spotted a guy in a Fedora and trenchcoat who followed you around all day, taking notes. He followed you everywhere you went and continuously recorded your location. He recorded who you called, who you visited, the businesses you patronized and the charitable organizations you supported. He wrote down the names of all your friends and acquaintances and recorded what you had for lunch at the diner down the street. However, he didn't actually eavesdrop on any of the conversations.
HOW IS THAT NOT SURVEILLANCE?
If a police officer parks a car across the street from your house and watches your house all night through a pair of binoculars and logs your activities, ISN'T THAT SURVEILLANCE?
The difference between these examples and the NSA's activities is only in the means - not the end product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violating state-enforced privacy rights
The CTPA, which relies on the California Constitution's "privacy clause," upheld by the US Supreme Court, was completely wiped out by the first round of spying during the Bush years. In 2008, Sen. Obama in voted with the majority to extend immunity to the telcos, including those in California, who disclosed telephone records and other data to the NSA. (That's when he lost my vote, forever.) So much for states' rights.
It's still the case. The CTPA is useless, the state's and federal cable privacy laws are useless, the very notion of privacy inherent in the Bill of Rights is null and void. What a pity. And, nothing to be done about is short of a radical change in the American government's relationship to its people.
We're a nation with two governments: the overt public government, and the covert intelligence community. Which one's in charge no longer matters, they are compradores.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fighting terror isn't it's main function, remember?
Political blackmail - Germany, Mexico, Brazil Presidential phone taps.
Industrial espionage - Brazilian Oil industry spying
Suppression of US citizens' Constitutional Rights and Freedoms - Too many to list. Drones flying around and spying on our phone calls for starters. Militarization of police departments is also a worrying trend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Newspeak dictionary
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Failure to understand
If she really thinks that just doing those things will "restore public confidence" (as if the public ever had confidence in these programs in the first place -- it's hard to have confidence in something that you don't know is happening), then she really, truly doesn't even begin understand what the uproar is about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Newspeak dictionary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Many who have been following these developments for the past decade will remember an informative document called "Interception Capabilities 2000". If you haven't seen it, its well worth reading if for no other reason than to provide some perspective on the technological development of COMINT surveillance systems over the time span of the last 13 years or more. It even has some screenshots of an NSA surveillance software of that era called "Trailmapper".
The subtitle of this report was somewhat longer:
"Report to the Director General for Research of the European Parliament (Scientific and Technical Options Assessment programme office) on the development of surveillance technology and risk of abuse of economic information."
So, I'm curious, for all those better versed in the recent earth history of state level surveillance tech than I: What abuses of economic information were known to have occurred? I've read through the document once or twice and while it highlights the potential risk of abuse of economic intelligence by 3rd parties connected with the intel communities, I don't recall any explicit references or footnotes indicating to what extent such had already at that time happened.
And I can't help but assume it must have happened at the time of the reports writing in order to earn so prominent a place in the title and subject matter of a report to the EU parliament.
After reading "The Secret History of Signals Intelligence" and a few introductory documents on cryptography I see no reason to believe our telecom network wasn't equipped with the capability for COMINT surveillance since day one. Because if it has been going on since the implementation of these public networks (if not being an a priori justification for their creation in the first place) then perhaps a better issue for activists to concern themselves with would be elucidating and illuminating not only what the criterion currently are for acting on the intel thus gathered and to what degree private commercial information might be shared with competing businesses, but how (or whether) these criterion have evolved (or devolved) since their devising.
q.v. Interception Capabilities 2000
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NSA Surveillance
The last commentators dissertation is 'spot on'. Information "increasing the possibility of false positives" is a bit of an understatement. I, as a Canadian Gov`t official was targeted,drugged, assaulted and micro-chipped, while attending a 3 day conference - Washington-Arlington 2005- I`ve have never had even a misdemeanor. The cover-up process must be a big part of the NSA`s budget or the budgets of over-zealous agencies involved....a case of `not enough terrorists``, so in order to to stay in practice we`ll target just about anything that even `hearsay` information falsely interpreted qualifies. Going over telephone message databases and picking one out ones that appears suspicious; without being in the moment or seeing the whole context, that telephone message now warrants action. As such, non-lethal harassment can now become much more sinister to semi-lethal harassment; `semi` infers a corporate conscience of letting the targeted person live- ``just in case we made a mistake``- and then spend a lot of time and money covering up the `collateral damage done. In essence the due process of law has been subverted
I believe the damage done to both Canada and the United States by this `wired-up`approach is more than any ji-hadists ever dreamed of. Whatever happened to `probable cause``, protection of the individual under all the Constitutional Amendments and The Charter Of Rights and Freedoms......questions, questions..questions deliberately unanswered. Those working in the relevant agencies like to go home at night thinking �`ve protected my country another day, deliberately- consciously or unconsciously oblivious to the risks of collateral damage to possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent people - marching us ominously toward a `fear`society``. This spreading `security sensitivity` is more than paranoia, its almost like a disease taking away the joys of normal life and living from those most affected. When one organization becomes so large and remotely untouchable; with hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect conscripts working in all kinds of jobs across N. America secretly aligned `to the cause``- G-D help us when these indoctrinated and brainwashed security advocates become armed and receive their marching orders when martial law is declared or any other drastic political reason warranting it.
G-D Bless Canada and The United States.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Metadata Nonsense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Metadata
[ link to this | view in thread ]