Documents Obtained By The ACLU Show NSA's Inability To Prevent Collection Of US Persons' Data And Communications
from the sued-into-translucence dept
The ACLU has freed up more NSA documents -- again as the result of a FOIA lawsuit. Some of what's been obtained provides a few more details on the NSA's reliance on Executive Order 12333 to perform its data and communications harvesting. This Executive Order is, and always has been, the go-to authority for the NSA. This allows it to bypass nearly every form of oversight. There's no FISA court involvement or input from Congressional oversight committees. The NSA relies almost exclusively on the good graces of the Executive Branch -- something that has worked out in its favor for the past two presidencies.The NSA's Office of General Counsel issued a memo discussing the agency's SIGINT (signals intelligence) work in 2007 as a response to questions from the executive branch. As is par for the course, the memo expresses its concerns for the rights of "US persons," as well as the agency's strict compliance with the Fourth Amendment. All well and good as far as that goes, which isn't very far.
[W]e conclude that compliance with NSA's Attorney General-approved minimization procedures, which are required by Executive Order 12333 and are rooted in Fourth Amendment privacy protections, constrains NSA from granting to employees of other intelligence agencies widespread access to NSA content databases.Which is true, more or less. Agencies like the UK's GCHQ are given broad access to raw, unminimized data and communications collected by the NSA, all without a warrant. The built-in argument is that the NSA doesn't release unminimized US person data or communications to its Five Eyes partners. But this distinction makes very little difference in practice.
As a practical matter, metadata from electronic communications such as email cannot be similarly shared at the moment under the same theory, because it is not possible to determine what communications are to or from U.S, persons nearly as readily as is the case with telephony, and often is not possible at all.As a "practical matter," nearly nothing the NSA collects should be shared, considering the untargeted manner in which it's collected. The NSA can't guarantee anything about the composition of its bulk collections, but that doesn't stop it from disseminating unminimized data/communications to its foreign "customers." In fact, the document clearly states that the agency feels there are zero protections inherent in "meta data," which means the sharing of identifying information (like phone numbers) with foreign intelligence agencies is perfecty acceptable.
A more recent memo -- issued in 2013 -- notes the further expansion of its powers under EO 12333. The document describes the 2008's modification of the 1981 Order, which consolidated signals intelligence programs under the Director of the National Security Agency. This also brought the Director of the CIA onboard as the head of Human Intelligence. The FBI was also brought in under the expansion of this directive, which added a new layer of middle management -- "functional managers" -- to the mix. These positions are in place to "weigh" the effectiveness of the interconnected agencies' programs against the "National Intelligence Priorities Framework," something that has rarely worked out in favor of privacy or civil liberties.
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: 4th amendment, eo 12333, executive order 12333, foia, nsa, privacy, surveillance, us persons
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ha, right. "Look at us we're so helpless collecting all this juicy data on all Americans. What will we ever do?!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 6th, 2014 @ 3:02pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 6th, 2014 @ 3:02pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 6th, 2014 @ 3:02pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 6th, 2014 @ 3:02pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 6th, 2014 @ 3:02pm
George Washington was a terrorist, depending on who you asked. Can't be all that bad.
I define terrorist as one who mass murders innocent non-combattants. So much for Winston Churchill and Harry Truman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 6th, 2014 @ 3:02pm
I define it a little differently. Your definition is simply that of mass murderers. To me, a terrorist is someone who uses fear as a means of social control and manipulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 6th, 2014 @ 3:02pm
That reduces the word to meaningless. There was one heck of a lot of that going on in the US just a couple of days ago. Maybe you need to use, "terrorist is someone who uses terror ...", but that's self-referential which doesn't make for a good definition.
Nit picking: the MMORPG for the 21st Century. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 6th, 2014 @ 3:02pm
Indeed yes.
I agree. The problem, really, is that "terrorism" is more of a marketing term than a meaningful one. every definition I've seen (including the ones used by the US government -- which are closer to mine than yours) are ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finding Nuggets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they don't mind protecting their own as seen with the incident of the CIA and Senator Fienstien. It was sure a different colored horse when that happened.
This gets right to the heart of why it is so venomously fought in courts with the National Security tags. Were the topic of Constitutional rights ever exposed for what it is they know this would fail to pass the criteria. They are not fools, they know this.
To them it is inconceivable to have to hit the power switch to the vacuum cleaner. Rather than do any sort of changes, the FUD will come out 10 fold over dire predictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would like them try to explain how this isn't clearly unconstitutional, but realistically they are so full of shit anything they would try to 'explain' to you would take twisting of common English vocabulary...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, the Constitution of the united States of America IS the last, and first, word considering lawfulness here in the USA.
It says that ALL (meaning every single bit) of legislation:
US Constitution. Article. I. Section. 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Notice that no where is mentioned any other branch of the federal government. It is also important to realize that it does NOT matter over how many years, or who all did it, it is STILL unlawful.
That EVERY person who served within the federal government and let executive orders "slide" are guilty of a felony.
The US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it is the Supreme LAW of THIS land. Executive orders are forbidden by it to both the legislative and the judicial branches by the word "All".
The Bill of Rights Preamble lets everyone know that it further adds things to the forbidden and "only-done-in-a-specific-in-writing- way" list. (caps are mine)
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment IV says EXACTLY how these things ARE allowed to be done within our nation: "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."
Since there was no warrants issued, and it matters NOT what those domestic enemies occupying our courts at this time say, what they are doing amounts to treason and to *terrorism against Americans and the USA from domestic enemies.
*28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: thnaks
That's strange. I thought that's what John F. said:
In answer, you're welcome to refer back to my reply to him.
What's going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fifth Columnists alert.
http://www.bursachat.net/
http://www.hazalsena.com/
http://cografyabilimi.net/
http://www.besici ftligi.com/
http://www.ledisiksuslemeleri.com/
Why are they having an apparently private conversation here unrelated to any TD stories?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No subject
http://www.sinetayfa.net/forum.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]