The Top 5 Lies NSA Defenders Still Spread: Don't Let Them Get Away With It
from the and-yet-they-keep-coming-back dept
The EFF has helpfully put together a list of the top 5 claims that defenders of the NSA have to stop making if they want to remain credible. In short, it's the top five lies that defenders of the NSA keep repeating over and over again, even though they've each been widely debunked. It's a handy guide to the statements and why they're untrue. You should go read the whole thing, but these are the five:- The NSA has stopped 54 terrorist attacks with mass spying
- Just collecting call detail records isn’t a big deal
- There have been no abuses of power
- Invading privacy is okay because it's done to prevent terrorist attacks
- There's plenty of oversight from Congress, from the courts and agency watchdogs
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: lies, nsa, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HTTPS creates a secure channel over an insecure network. This ensures reasonable protection from eavesdroppers and man-in-the-middle attacks, provided that adequate cipher suites are used and that the server certificate is verified and trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Either way I don't really care. https is slightly slower though but the difference isn't that big of a deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
SSL is not guaranteed absolutely 100% secure, true - not even with the fixes for the discovered vulnerabilities; there could always be more which haven't been discovered yet.
But it's far, far more secure than not using encryption at all, which is the status quo ante, and is still the main alternative.
There is absolutely nothing suspicious about using SSL at this point. Refusing to use SSL, in favor of using no encryption, would be more on the suspicious side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If anything, it should raise suspicions"
This makes no sense. It implies that because a security scheme has vulnerabilities, using it is worse than using nothing at all? That's crazy talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is their ROI?
For the amount of money spent each year, how many deaths have been prevented? Use whatever factor per incident is appropriate (say 100) and compare with other death prevention measures - fires, road, chemical, medical?
For the numbers of information collected, what is the percentage has been useful in prevention compared to total information collected?
For the numbers of abuses (for which we will always have more than 1) what is the ratio of abuses (misfires) to events?
How often has the constitution been broken for successful prevention?
How many many times has Congress, etc been informed for each collection regime. That is the full Congress (not just some minor committee), etc.
Compare all figures with any other death prevention methodology and work our the specific ROI's involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is their ROI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is their ROI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is their ROI?
Terror, Security, and Money: Balancing the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Homeland Security
John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
points
1 - who knows? Where do you see this specific claim? I have seen some claims that the NSA action has helped in cases, but not a specific number claimed.
2 - For many people, collection of call detail (aka meta data) is not a big deal. There are some grumblings online (like this post) but seemingly no overwhleming backlash.
3 - there are abuses of power all the time, from the cop who uses a taser when a baton would have been enough, to the guy at the DMV who checks out the blond girl's details to try to hit her up for a date, stalker style. The question isn't if there is abuse, but rather if the abuse is widespread, systematic, and enough to negate the intent of the agency. So far, there aren't tons of cases lining up here, just seemingly the regular level of exceptional situations.
4 - loaded. Calls that go outside the US are subject to different legal standing.
5 - There is plenty of oversight. The NSA didn't appear out of thin air and take over the place, it was created and is funded like any other agency.
How about some actual links to direct quotes on stuff like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: points
2: It remains a big deal, even when people don't know it. There is no overwhelming backlash because of the incredible success in making this vast trove of data seem boring and remote.
3: With the incredibly exceptional powers lined up, both in laws on the books and in their willingness to just do whatever they like, "the regular level of exceptional situations" is freakin unacceptable.
4:no one was talking about calls, though that court-created mechanism is interesting. Care to address.. well.. anything else the NSA has done with it's seemingly unlimited budget and unlimited power to fight terr'r?
5: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/nsa-federal-agency-created-secret-memo-rather-congressional-l egislation.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-nsa-denied-access
http:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/black-budget/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: points
2 - Some feel it's a big deal, but if the US government wants to keep a record of the number of times I order pizza (too often) or the number of times I call for a taxi, they are more than welcome. From what I can see online, outside of the vocal minority, most people seem okay with this as well.
3 - Bad news for you, anything that involves humans will have some abuses, some stretching, and the odd guy checking out the hot girl with his super investigator powers. You can call it freaking unacceptable, but these are people and not robots.
4 - There have been tons of allegations, plenty of smoke but not a whole lot of fire. I don't get upset at NSA for using the same sort of digital backdoors that H4x0r types use every day to get their digital jollies. Moreover, it does help to put the question of what is really private, and what is not.
5 - 1952. 62 years later, get over it. The congress, a long series of presidents, and the like have all had the chance to legislate the agency into the ground. They have not. The agency is almost old enough to be out of copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: points
I do call it unacceptable and if they hadn't collected the data then these humans couldn't have done what they did - that is sort of the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: points
You no understand. That this is not what they are doing. They are collecting all of the phone calls you make, combining that with other communication information, and are able to accurately determine what you have been doing and where you have been.
While you may not be much of a target, the real problem becomes when someone of importance starts doing something they do not like.
For example, say there is someone running in an election against a Senator that has been helpful to the NSA, they can look at the profiles they construct and may be able to identify activity that they can use to persuade them not to run for office.
We do not have laws to prevent domestic spying because we care about who knows when we order pizza, we have these laws so our government cannot act against our election system.
These laws exist for the same reason we do not allow our representatives to be "detained" for minor legal infractions when they are trying to get to a vote. We do not want to have law enforcement stopping people that could vote against their interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: points
That is not a reason to let it continue. You don't let someone finishing raping "because they are human", you drag them out by their hair and make them stop.
don't get upset at NSA for using the same sort of digital backdoors that H4x0r types use every day
Bullshit. NOT TELLING US ABOUT COMPROMISED SYSTEMS DOES US HARM. This is an agency that is supposed to protect people. Leaving a bear trap on the street at night because it 'may' help catch a criminal is stupid. Assuming that nobody else will step in it is even dumber.
The congress, a long series of presidents, and the like have all had the chance to legislate the agency into the ground.
So we give up? snif, snif, but it's haaarrrd. We cannot get our lawmakers to regulate an agency so we should just let them do whatever they want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: points
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/803163-rogers-nsa-speech.html#document/p23/a125317
h ttp://www.propublica.org/documents/item/802262-us-13-alexander-keynote.html#document/p14
http://usnew s.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19175466-nsa-chief-says-surveillance-programs-helped-foil-54-plots
htt p://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/09/19/nsa-sends-letter-to-its-extended-family-to-reassure-them-th at-they-will-weather-this-storm/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023045207045791259 50862794052?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB100014240527023045207045 79125950862794052.html
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130911/02400324482/how-many-lies-can-polit ician-stuff-into-single-sentence-about-nsa-surveillance.shtml
There are plenty more. To say no specific number has been claimed is... wrong.
How about some actual links to direct quotes on stuff like this?
Ok. Now will admit to being wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: points
Care to work the other 4 points now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: points
True, but these are people who don't understand what metadata collection really means. Once explained to them, they have a problem with it. By the way, the resistance to this is far more than some minor "grumbling on the web". It's a significant percentage of the population.
"The question isn't if there is abuse, but rather if the abuse is widespread, systematic, and enough to negate the intent of the agency"
The real question isn't if there is abuse at all, but if there is significant potential for abuse. And it's very clear with these programs that there is.
"loaded. Calls that go outside the US are subject to different legal standing."
Where does point 4 talk about calls going outside the US? The calls don't actually have to go outside the US to be surveilled.
"There is plenty of oversight"
Really? Can you point to it? The only two oversight mechanisms that I know of are the FISC and the congressional intelligence committee -- both of which have demonstrably failed to provide anything like even a reasonable amount of oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like getting in a car accident and then driving faster. If I had been going 20 MPH the accident wouldn't have happened!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(This isn't a "shot" at our brothers across the 49th; the only difference between the US and Canada in this respect is that we, like the UK, don't have "Constitution Rights" to abuse in the first place.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6. It's impossible for the DOJ and NSA to backup or print out evidence from their databases, in order to comply with court orders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling NSA defenders liars when they make any claims is unpatriotic and basically treasonous because the more people know what is and isn't true, the more knowledge our enemies have to use against us.
The world would be a much better place if everything the government said was a lie and everyone believed it all.
Checkmate, freedom lovers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snowden and National Security
History clearly shows the dangers. It's arguable that we would have lost World War II if the Poles hadn't broken the German Enigma cipher machine. The Germans were losing, and they knew something was wrong, but they were convinced that Enigma was secure. If someone like Edward Snowden had made that information public we might have lost the war.
That's not the only case. The US won the Battle of Midway because the Japanese didn't know that we had broken their operational code. The in World War I British won the Battle of Jutland because the Royal Navy had broken the High Seas Fleet's codes.
I believe that some of the things Snowden has revealed will make it harder for us to get the advantage that signals intelligence gave to the people who preceded us. His revelation about collection on foreign leaders is one example. The damage he caused may be much wider than we think and may last much longer than we fear. Targets will not just fix the systems Snowden has identified, they'll also check others he hasn't. And they may keep doing it for years.
Collecting on foreign systems is important because it gives us a window into their interests and actions. Of course we should collect on Angela Merkel. Germany has different interests are different from ours. She's taken a different position on Ukraine and we'll do better if we know the details of what it is. There are other examples.
Please be clear; I'm not defending bulk collection of US phone calls and email. That's wrong and I'm glad Snowden told us. I'm talking only about what he's said about collecting on foreign targets.
It's how to understand the damage that Snowden did without having some of the history. I suggest "The Ultra Secret," "We Slept at Dawn," "The Codebreakers," and "Seizing the Enigma." There are some good websites on the Enigma: "http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/how-enigma-works.html," "http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/enigma_01.shtml," "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb44bGY2KdU," "http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/atlantic/enigma.aspx." There are some good sites on how codebreaking won the Battle of Midway: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway," "http://www.navy.mil/midway/how.html"
Thanks for taking time to read my post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Snowden and National Security
To which the response should be, 'Any country/leader that was surprised by spy agencies spying on foreign leaders/countries, is one filled with idiots'.
That's pretty much the entire purpose for such agencies, to gather intelligence on what other countries are doing, any country that needed Snowden to tell them that is just a titch slow on how things work, and not likely a threat to anyone but themselves, so blaming him for it seems like a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Snowden and National Security
Also, of course the Germans expect to the subject of collection. If they're doing their job they would have used protected Merkel's phones and so might have thought that they were.
The Germans have a two-War record of assuming their leaking communications were secure. (Lucky for us.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Snowden and National Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not up to us to educate you. It is up to you to read current events if you want to stay current. None of the above I might add is current. It's the old numbers trotted out when Snowden started his releases. That's been a year ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To
2. They are paid to spread these lies.
3. They have a vested interest in the industry behind the policies behind the lies.
4. They have huge egos and lots of hubris and are butthurt from all of the criticism.
5. They are power hungry assholes that don't have any respect for the people, the law, or any of the principles on which this country was founded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
5. There's plenty of oversight from Congress, from the courts and agency watchdogs
My friend is an absolute believer in these two. In fact, he not only believes them about the NSA, but also about the FBI and local law enforcement. He excuses pretty much any abuse of power (as long as it doesn't directly affect him) as being necessary to fight crime and believes that if a cop is guilty of abusing his power, the other police and courts will say so. Therefore, any case that goes against a person accusing the cop of abuse means that they lied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Oversight" is not binary thing either. Of cause there is oversight. But - what exactly to be overseen is not so straight-forward.
Now, the problem is not in NSA or Congress. The problem is american general cowardice. Large majority of US population are actually very afraid of terrorists (real or imagined).
That's understandable - US people never had to defend their country. US people never in history were threatened (Civil war doesn't count and other wars was fought overseas). They thought they are untouchable, invincible and so on. Here come 9/11 and show that all expensive warfare won't protect you from really determined people. So, the fear is real. And yes, NSA have many bona fide supporters for what they do.
Add to this known american arrogance ("why can't we spy on German - that's what CIA is for!"). Yes, of cause you can spy on whoever you want, but beware of consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. The American Revolutionary War
2. The Northweat Indian War
3. The Quasi-War (involving US merchant vessels in coastal waters)
4. The War of 1812
5. The Border War
That's not including the Civil War, wars where the US invaded lands now within US territory, or the many wars with Native American tribes. Granted the last war within US territory was 100 years ago so nobody involved would still be alive today, but America has seen war inside its borders several times since its formation. Also Pearl Harbor showed us that we were still vulnerable to attack within our borders before 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see how this one is a lie. It would only be a lie if the invasion of privacy was being done for some other reason. We're starting to entire tinfoil territory if we assert that, and I have not see any proof of this claim.
If this had been phrased as, "Invading privacy is okay because it is preventing terrorist attacks" then it would be false because the mass surveillance has not stopped a single attack but that's not the way this was phrased.
If the core of the disagreement is that privacy is more important than trying to prevent terrorist attacks then the authoritarian claim is not a lie at all but a difference in how much value the authoritarian ascribes to privacy. Since value judgments are all subjective bullshit, the authoritarian's claim is no more true or false that of the civil libertarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regain your online privacy
We offer a professional global email service solution for both personal and business use. PrivacyAbroad email service is free of advertising, SPAM and provides private communication with your emails saved and backed up in Switzerland, renowned for its strong data privacy protection laws. Email comes with 1 GB of expandable storage space.
If governments and "free" email providers can peek through your webcam, read your emails and look inside
your computer, so can the criminals.
There is data security, and then there is Swiss data security.
www.americansrighttoprivacy.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is it folks. I don't care if you don't mind the government reading your email, collecting information about you or anything else. I don't care that you have nothing to hide. There probably were slaves that had a pretty good life and didn't mind being a slave. Being a slave violates human rights. Invading privacy violates the Constitution.
People died in support of the Constitution. Today, our military supposedly fights and dies in support of our Constitution. Every public official swears to uphold the Constitution.
Is it really that hard? Violating the Constitution in the way our government has done (and continues to do) should be considered treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]