Former Top NSA Exec Claims He Challenged The Bulk Phone Records Program... And Was Rebuffed
from the and-everyone-laughed-at-him dept
The AP has a big story out claiming that, back in 2009, a "now-retired" but "senior NSA official" found out about the Section 215 program collecting bulk phone records from the telcos and argued that it went too far and should be stopped:Years before Edward Snowden sparked a public outcry with the disclosure that the National Security Agency had been secretly collecting American telephone records, some NSA executives voiced strong objections to the program, current and former intelligence officials say. The program exceeded the agency's mandate to focus on foreign spying and would do little to stop terror plots, the executives argued.The "former official" apparently found the whole program to be problematic and correctly predicted that if it ever became public it would be a problem:
The 2009 dissent, led by a senior NSA official and embraced by others at the agency, prompted the Obama administration to consider, but ultimately abandon, a plan to stop gathering the records.
The former official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he didn't have permission to discuss a classified matter, said he knows of no evidence the program was used for anything other than its stated purpose — to hunt for terrorism plots in the U.S. But he said he and others made the case that the collection of American records in bulk crossed a line that he and his colleagues had been taught was sacrosanct.The article notes that these concerns did lead the Justice Department, Congress and the White House to take a closer look at the program -- and then choose to keep it going. This contradicts the narrative that some have suggested that the White House didn't fully understand the program in the past because it was preoccupied with other issues. Now it seems clear that not only were officials well aware of the program, they chose not to rein in the program when they had the chance.
He said he also warned of a scandal if it should be disclosed that the NSA was storing records of private calls by Americans — to psychiatrists, lovers and suicide hotlines, among other contacts.
The article further notes that this official and others within the NSA who were concerned with the program had offered up some suggested changes, not unlike what was actually in the USA Freedom Act that was just rejected. Perhaps more interesting, the article concludes by pointing out that if this change had been put in place, there's a decent chance that Ed Snowden never would have revealed everything else -- because this was the main program that so concerned Snowden, and which has been the centerpiece of most of the discussions since the Snowden revelations.
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, nsa, patriot act, section 215
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Too bad they are no longer there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And there is likely a reason for that.
Why would you retain disloyal employees valuing the words of their superiors 200+ years ago over the word of their current superiors?
People who consider an oath more binding than a paycheck?
They are a liability. In "Die Hard 2", there is an anti-terror elite unit on the way to the airport, and they have a newcomer who just transfered fresh into the unit and is proud and excited to serve with them. He gets knifed before they arrive on-site since it would take too long to explain to him the unit's particular mode of interpreting the law.
That's actually a rather close depiction of what the NSA looks like now. Fiercely loyal. Just to themselves and what their mission has morphed into, not to the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, because the NSA is totally about embracing limits and would never dream about retaliating against perceived dissent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about location data and internet data and financial data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? Obama lied (again)? Tell me it isn't so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@1
ya um like ONE GUY is not reason for your comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @1
"some NSA executives voiced strong objections to the program, current and former intelligence officials say."
executives plural
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ken Dilanian wrote this article.
This is the same guy, that when writing for the LA Times, ran drafts of articles past contacts at the CIA: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/09/ken-dilanian-sent-cia-drafts-of-stories-194906.html
At the very least, one needs to suspect this article of being vetted by the NSA or CIA or some one outside of AP editorial control. If the article is CIA originated or edited, then one might write it off as an attack in an inter-bureau turf war: the article clearly shows the NSA upper management as being not responsive to employee alerts. If the article is NSA-edited or approved, that same slant is a bit harder to understand. That is, it shows that Edward Snowden was correct in claiming that there are no "internal channels" by which to report abuse of dragnet surveillance.
Overall, it's too bad this article came out associated with Dilanian. It's hard to see how to read it because of his past unethical behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ones with morals get fucked
Start here...
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/23/the-secret-sharer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ones with morals get fucked
When are charges going to be brought against those who allowed it to continue after they were warned? When are those who accused Drake of being a traitor going to be fired?
When do impeachment proceedings begin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as stated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impeachment yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impeachment yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]