NSA Official Positively Compares Metadata Searches To Stop And Frisk
from the an-apt-comparison,-but-hardly-in-the-way-he-means-it dept
There's a huge disconnect between the mindset of the intelligence community and everyone else outside it. Considering the majority still lies with those on the outside, you'd think they'd make more of an effort to connect. But, as this statement, made to the PCLOB (Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board), indicates the gap hasn't narrowed in the slightest.
Employees at the National Security Agency follow the same standards as controversial "stop and frisk" policies when accessing phone surveillance data, intelligence officials said Tuesday.It simply cannot be stressed enough that you need to choose your words wisely when discussing programs that are already suspected of violating civil liberties. Comparing them to something just as controversial only calls the programs into further question, not to mention Rajesh De's judgement.
Though the agency collects data about all U.S. phone calls, NSA employees need to demonstrate “reasonable and articulable suspicion” when they want to access that phone call data.
"It’s effectively the same standard as stop and frisk,” NSA General Counsel Rajesh De said during a hearing held by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which supervises anti-terrorism surveillance programs.
A board member called De out on this, pointing out the NYPD's program is hardly without its problems, seeing as it's currently the subject of multiple lawsuits including two high-profile cases in federal courts. Having been apprised of developments outside the intelligence bubble, the officials "amended their claim," so to speak.
The intelligence officials defended their version of the process, saying that searches of the phone call database are subject to more oversight than police officers who stop and frisk people on the street.Well, one would hope so, considering the particular "cops on the street" Rajash De compared NSA analysts to have had very little oversight over their program, which simply requires an officer to fill out a small form and check some boxes ("furtive movement") in order to justify shoving someone up against the wall.
As it stands now (especially with the City's stay being granted), stop and frisk hardly even needs "reasonable suspicion." Supposedly the NSA does, but again, we're expected to take officials' word on this, and any references De (or anyone else) makes towards "oversight" should probably be ignored. "Oversight" is the ideal, not the reality. The same goes for the NYPD, which has been granted (like the NSA) an extremely long leash by indulgent overseers (Mayor Bloomberg/intelligence committees).
DNI counsel Robert Litt added that the "actual degree of intrusion" when the agency searches the (not officially a) collection is much less than that of a stop and frisk search. Well, I would hope so. For one thing, no one's pockets are being turned out or having their crotch region manhandled. If they were, there'd be a whole lot fewer unnoticed privacy violations, much to the chagrin of Mike Rogers.
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: metadata, nsa, nsa surveillance, pclob, rajesh de, stop and frisk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So they're searching for weapons?
Terry authorized a pat-down for weapons, on the basis that on the facts there, the lone officer reasonably suspected he was outnumbered by three armed criminals. Three armed criminals who might do him violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they're only spying on black people in sketchy neighborhoods, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First time that the NSA has admitted that Metadata searches are unconstitutional.
Now, ain't that a wrinkle in the NSA's plans to expand the program?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Newsflash: Second Circuit disagrees.
“Court Blocks Stop-and-Frisk Changes for New York Police”, by Joseph Goldstein, New York Times, October 31, 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not quite.
The appeals court did not revisit the actual decision, so we don't know if they disagree or not. They simply found that there was a question about the impartiality of the original judge. From the article you linked to:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK. Maybe you're too dense to read between the lines.
The Second Circuit sua sponte tossed Judge Scheindlin. None of the parties asked for that. The Second Circuit just went out and did it, writing a gratuitous swipe at the judge.
Here's another federal judge's opinion on what the Second Circuit did. Judge Kopf (senior status, District of Nevada) calls it “a cheap shot”.
So maybe you yourself are just too dense to read between the lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh...name calling. Truly a sign of a great orator with a compelling argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you understand everything backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes.
Here's a basic primer in reading a judicial opinion:
There is nothing in an appellate opinion more important than the action the judges take.
The rest of the opinion is, hopefully, the judges explaining the reasons they took that action. But you can't always take them at their word. When their words are at variance with what they did, then what they did controls.
Judges wind up saying all sorts of things. Some of it is just—well, the judge is just saying that.
You have to look at what the judges actually order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
___________________________________
It's a good thing judicial holdings rely on inference and not language.
Oh wait, only a dense moron would keep digging that hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actions speak louder than words. That goes double when you're reading a court's opinion.
What the judges do —what the judges order— forms the kernel of the court's holding.
Sometimes that kernel is all there really is, and everything else is just dicta.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah - you're some kinda dick-ta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moving Goalposts
This appears to be an attempt to set up a straw-man by getting the opponents of NSA searches to focus on similarities between this and Stop & Frisk, thereby allowing an argument that the programs are better than Stop & Frisk to carry weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving Goalposts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving Goalposts
I like to analyze the strategy of my opponents. This makes it easier to counter them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving Goalposts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this mean that the NSA frequently 'targets' or 'racially profiles' Americans when they conduct their 'metadata searches'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Metadata is like 'stop and frisk' because we don't need reasonable suspicion. Now searching that data would be like doing a cavity search, and of course we would have more oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]