Feinstein (Again) Says Metadata Program 'Is Not Surveillance'
from the you're-only-embarrassing-yourself,-Dianne dept
Senator Dianne Feinstein's war of words in defense of the NSA's programs continues, despite both the political tide and public favor shifting in the other direction. According to Feinstein, everyone is still suffering from some sort of mass delusion when it comes to the Section 215 program.
“It’s not a surveillance program, it’s a data-collection program,” she said while appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.Oh, but it's actually both. According to supporters of the NSA, metadata is just a bunch of anonymous numbers harvested in hopes of discovering needles. To those actually paying attention, metadata is a very efficient way to collect very personal information about someone. Just because it looks like data doesn't mean it's not surveillance. Let's not forget that metadata provides enough information to justify extrajudicial killings.
It's still surveillance. It just bears no resemblance to what spying used to mean. What the NSA has done is turn "surveillance" into something abstract, but equally invasive. It has eliminated the targeted nature of its classic definition and replaced it with servers full of data, all of it theoretically linked to another abstraction: "terrorism."
The headline says Feinstein "blasts" critics, but this sort of clueless pedantry doesn't actually "blast" anyone. Months after the defenders' assertions have been repeatedly dismantled (including two similar assertions by the senator), Feinstein's willingness to cling to a nostalgic view of surveillance could almost be termed "delightfully old school" -- if only she still didn't have at least one hand on the controls as the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
She also said she wasn't aware of another revelation released in conjunction with Glenn Greenwald's book on Snowden and the NSA.
In “No Place to Hide,” released last week, Greenwald said the U.S. government places surveillance tools in technology equipment to be sold abroad, an accusation the U.S. government often lobs at the Chinese government.Well, I'm sure the NSA keeps secrets from even you, Dianne. And I'm sure the NSA is at least as surprised as you are that the information is now public. No one seems to be aware of some of the stuff that has been leaked, elements of which have escaped even the attention of those on the committees that have performed actual oversight, rather than just stood cheering on the sidelines.
That program “does not sound familiar,” Feinstein said Sunday.
Ultimately, whether it doesn't fit into Feinstein's dewy-eyed surveillance ideal or if it has escaped (read: been withheld from) her attention, she's behind it. Because without all of this, we're doomed.
“I know they will come after us if they can, I see the intelligence,” she said.If that's so, remind us again why all the surveillance and expansion of government powers is necessary. Because it doesn't seem to have improved anything.
“Terror is not down in the world, it is up.”
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: dianne feinstein, metadata, nsa, section 215, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
They have just reclassified what that means. However, if you read the 4th... Unreasonable has ZERO to do with anything.
This is what every ignorant and corrupt person "THINKS" the 4th says.
Citizens are protected from "Unreasonable" search and seizure.
This is what the 4th actually means.
ANY search and seizure by the Government is UNREASONABLE unless a warrent is issued per theses following guidlines "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
It is shit-tastically insane how many people get the damn Constitution so damn wrong all the damn time! It's all in plain English and the majority of Americans cannot even understand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As much as I would LIKE to agree with you, you are dead wrong here. It does specifically prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. The purpose of a warrant based on probable cause is for the court to determine if the search is reasonable or not. If the court determines that the search is reasonable it can issue a warrant proclaiming it as such prior to the search or seizure taking place. Searches and seizures that conform to that standard are by definition reasonable just as if someone gives consent to a search or have their property seized for evidence purposes, it is also considered reasonable due to the consent given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
This part of the 4th is more of an information insert as to the purposes of the amendment. Why is that just information? Because the term unreasonable is clearly ambiguous, and everyone knows that each other persons idea of "reasonable" is literally different per person for people to kill one another over it (as history proves).
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Now, since the Founders of our Nation already knew that people such as YOU exist to do nothing more than consume air, they had to specifically write what the Government CAN DO!
"but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This is the real action item here... this Amendment is more about Granting Power to the Government where it had none otherwise.
This subject clearly identifies what is so wrong with America today. So many people think that the Constitution/Bill of Rights are nothing but limiters against Government and it is not. This document is as much about giving to the government as well as stating what it cannot take.
Right now we have a government already taking far more than it has authority to take, and citizens such as yourself too ignorant to even understand why, how, or when.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
"please tell me where it authorizes reasonable searches and seizures?"
Instead of thinking about what the 4th authorizes or protects you should instead read it like it is intended. It is 'flat the fuck out telling' us what IS in FACT considered "REASONABLE". The ONLY reasonable search or seizure is done with a warrant and all that entails... not a cops reasonable fucking suspicion!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
This article points it out clearly why this whole idea of "reasonable" is fucking wrong. Even SCOTUS is stupid as a box of damn rocks for a bunch of "Judicial Scholars" or whatever that means. They simply do not even understand the 4th on a fundamental level.
"ONLY a WARRANT issued under probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized is reasonable!"
I really cannot emphasize just how important it is for people to understand what initially appears to be minutiae is actually DAMN IMPORTANT!!!
We are destroying our nation because you all cannot pass fucking 5th grade English! Are we all really this stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
I believe consent is beyond the scope of the 4th. Without going into details, one can consent to anything they are ignorant or dumb enough to consent too.
And to clarify one thing, consent obtained through coercion or assumption, like buying a plane ticket is complete BS. Buy a plane ticket does not remove your 4th Amendment rights to not your have your junk juggled by the TSA.
The government simply does not have the legal authority to remove our rights the way they do it these days (lengthy imprisonment prior to trial, search and seizures, illegal entry, civil forfeiture) and we are just letting them get by with bus load after bus load of egregious tyrannies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
Yes, the Constitution BOTH grants power and rights and restricts power and rights, and the 4th Amendment is an example of a balance of that.
However, the 4th Amendment indicates that a search is reasonable if supported by a warrant, which in turn is supported by probable cause and particularly describes what is to be taken and where it is likely located.
The purpose of the 4th Amendment was to counter the "General Warrants" the Crown used against Colonists and regular Peasants to keep them in line. The 4th Amendment was a response to that system, and required the Warrants to be more than general.
The problem today is that the secret courts and interpretations of law and NSA are in effect bringing back general warrants. What probable cause does the NSA have to collect all metadata on everyone? "They might be associated with terrorists" is too broad an explanation to pass as reasonable.
Case law has shown that warrants require specificity. You can't get a warrant to search for a stolen car and use that warrant to look inside every drawer of a garage. You can only look where the car is likely to be. That's why warrants always include "and drug paraphernalia," because it is small and lets cops look through drawers for evidence.
With the NSA, there is no specificity. The most specific they get is "People" and "Metadata." and then collect everything. It's like getting a warrant to look for a stolen house, and searching EVERY drawer in your apartment to find the house.
That's the problem. It's not so much the definition of reasonableness, but more that the NSA does not have probable cause AND does not attempt to be specific about what it is searching for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
Legally, this isn't automatically true. You can (and do, in many cases) control what happens to it through contracts.
The real problem, and what I have yet to hear any sort of explanation for, is why does the third party doctrine mean that the government can force the other party into revealing information without raising Constitutional issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is surveillance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piece of work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is classic surveillance
Not sure I agree, unless by 'it' you mean the scope of the targeting. Collecting metadata is what every PI, stalker, spy has always done: When did I go to work? Who came to see me? When did I leave? Did I go home? or did I go somewhere else? Did I stop by the jewelry store on my way somewhere else? This is the same sort of information that metadata reveals.
The fact that NSA does this to everyone and can retroactively target anyone they don't like is the new wrinkle. It's surveillance on steroids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm insulted that she thinks the rest of us are ignorant enough to believe her delusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was thinking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not assassination. It is slowing of heartbeat.
Please report for remedial training immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you just posted and article about how the Freedom act was basically gutted of any real teeth.
The political tide hasn't shifted one bit, and while the public may still be against the collection a lot of people have moved on to worry about other things. The major news networks are not harping on it over and over to keep it fresh like they do with other things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She had another shit fit when it was found out her precious little team was spied on by the NSA and some documents they had already seen were disappearing.
She's already demonstrated she believes she is part of the elite that don't have to be bothered with what the plebes get.
Like so many others, it is time to send a bunch of these Washington Career politicians home jobless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought...
I just don't understand why the NSA spends so much money and time on NOT doing surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Eureka! moment.
The family Guy "Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man"
She is just as usefull and informative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Eureka! moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goes well with it's not bribery it's campaign contributions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess Feinstein wouldn't mind the people demanding, taking all her e-mail, phone record, and financial transaction metadata for the public to keep in case we have a reason to analyze it some time in the future, right? ... Right?
You see, the difference there is if she publishes it, she is giving it up. That's not what's happening with the NSA. It's close to what is happening with Google, but not the NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, if it's not surveillance then
As I am certain that you know that metadata collection is entirely as bad as surveillance I am certain that you will not take this step, proving that you are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, if it's not surveillance then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surveilance is described as: the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting them. This can include observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment (such as CCTV cameras), or interception of electronically transmitted information (such as Internet traffic or phone calls); and it can include simple, relatively no- or low-technology methods such as human intelligence agents and postal interception.
Collecting metadata sent over the internet is 'surveilance', there's nothing else that explains it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give us the totals, no specifics, just the counts
Must be by country so we can see US vs Iran etc.
And I call bullshit if totals must be withheld for "national security".
Totals are just numbers. She should be fine with those !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give us the totals, no specifics, just the counts
And then people started to actually look into those claims, and it got knocked down to 2.
And then people looked a little closer, and even those faded away, with at most one maybe having been decided by NSA spying, and that one involved nothing more than the transfer of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Why no your honor..."
"... I didn't install those cameras in the public pool changing rooms to spy on people, I was merely gathering data on different body types."
"... I wasn't speeding, I was merely going 40 miles over the speed limit."
"... I didn't beat that man, I was giving him a deep tissue massage."
"... I didn't stab that man, I was demonstrating how effective the knife I had was in cutting things."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Datamining
Data-collection programs that can search, find matches and positively identify specific patterns in a text/context or a persons behavior will ALWAYS be surveillance.
Patterns to look for could include timing and/or specific characters used in a certain way that are unique for an individual. Datamining will over time (if collated with previously gathered data) be able to identify character and determine targeted individuals psychological profiles. Something like searching for the LIX number in a context, can also tell if a person has a higher education or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treatment vs. Disease
It's actually not as crazy as it sounds. If a patient has a disease and treatment is not working, the doctor will often increase the dose. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. If you value privacy, the treatment is like chemo: it's harming the patient. You may even consider the treatment worse than the disease, like I do, but this doesn't mean that increasing the dose will necessarily be ineffective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incompetent/Co-opted
It's not a Senate Intelligence Committee oversight program, it's a rubber-stamp program.
That program “does not sound familiar,” Feinstein said Sunday.
Dianne Feinstein is incompetent and/or she has been co-opted by NSA.
“I know they will come after us if they can, I see the intelligence,” she said.
Why do they want to come after us?
They want to do us harm because we, the US government, have been busy bombing, kidnapping, torturing, indefinitely detaining, militarily occupying and humiliating the various they in different global locales for decades while operating outside the law thousands of miles from home. It's called revenge.
Diane Feinstein has sold the people of this nation out for her own personal gain. She has turned her back on the very documents she swore an oath to uphold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incompetent/Co-opted
In one sense, the distinctions between 702, 215 and 12333 are not just unintelligable to the majority of Americans, but entirely irrelevant. All the same, you do need to understand those distinctions in order to follow what the players are saying.
“Most of NSA’s data collection authorized by order Ronald Reagan issued”, by Ali Watkins, McClatchy, November 21, 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please indulge me.
All this will be done with tools available to the ordinary person.
I would also like them to finally present some of their own metadata, without the sidedish of lies, on how many terrorists they have caught with their vile programs and how many people are affected, so we can determine for ourselves if it is actually worth it (which it most certainly is not).
What's wrong NSA? It's just metadata... unless you have something to hide, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the USA and it's allies are mostly to blame for that increase in terror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh! /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, I forgot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like me putting a camera in someone's shower and saying I'm only 'data collecting', as long as I don't look at the pictures. It's so absurd, and I'm scared that Sen. Spystein actually believes this nonsense.
The NSA has years worth of dossiers on people's internet browsing history, email history, phone call history, geo-location base station and GPS history, financial history, and employment history.
As soon as someone makes waves, the 'data collectors' in charge of this treasure trove of personal information will use all this against someone, digging back years and years through someone's personal life. Then use all that unwarranted and unconstitutionally seized past history against them in a court of law.
Yet Sen. Spystein doesn't see a problem with years worth of unconstitutional bulk 'data collection' on each and every American citizen happening since their date of birth.
Ignorance is bliss, until reality comes crashing down. I don't know what else to say about her espionage on the American Public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fascism 2014
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is what people around you are not telling you.
You are a sanctimonious bitch.
You got so VERY angry when you discovered they were spying on you and hacking things you cared about, but blithely ignore it being done to citizens, allies, and the rest of the entire planet.
Terrorism is up, because you authorize the citizens of the US to be terrorized daily. TSA, "Constitutional Free Zones" well inside our borders, wholesale collection of data (it is spying, it is illegal), and supporting actions globally that seriously piss people off. You are making more terrorists with every single utterance out of your mouth.
Stop pretending you can say something that will gloss over how much of the Constitution, that you swore an oath to uphold, you have allowed to be shredded.
Intelligence gathering operations in the US no longer answer to anyone. They lie to your face, they deny you access, how the hell can you claim to know anything when they can pick and chose what you are allowed to know. How can you make any informed decisions when they hide the damn facts. You seem unable or unwilling to actually do anything other that offer mewling lip service about some horror that will befall us if we demand the law be followed, you and the rest of Congress sit in your hands and play games for soundbites. How about you actually put the people first for once in your career.
I'd hope for you to be thrown out of office but anyone who wants a job in Congress is pretty much just as corrupt or will be soon enough when faced with what politics has become in this country.
You are a disgrace to your office and to the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"No, no, no! The script my intelligence handlers gave me, only lists data collection and not surveillance. And you can't argue with 'FACTS', you pheasant*that's a bird?* Oh, there was an issue with my auto cue. I meant 'citizen'."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know they will come after us if they can
And yes, this includes even people in the House Intelligence Committee, like Diane S. Roark.
http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2011/01/drama_oversight/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Improving our safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]