NSA Waited Until Christmas Eve To Release Details Of Its Illegal Surveillance On Americans
from the merry-christmas-everyone! dept
One of the recurring storylines from NSA defenders is that there's been "no abuse" of the surveillance programs. Except, that's not true. Leaked and released documents have shown thousands of examples of abuse including failed audits and minimal accountability. In fact, in many of the cases where abuse was found, it was only discovered thanks to employees confessing about abusing the systems years later -- meaning that it's quite likely that there are many more cases of abuse that the NSA itself doesn't even know about.The ACLU has been seeking detailed reporting from the NSA on its abuses, filing a lawsuit against the agency for its failures to fully respond to a FOIA request. The NSA -- which has a habit of releasing important documents late on Friday evenings before a weekend -- took things one step further this time, waiting until Christmas Eve to dump a whole load of files detailing the NSA's abuse of surveillance practices. Some of the abuses appear rather egregious:
In a 2012 case, for example, an NSA analyst “searched her spouse’s personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting,” according to one report. The analyst “has been advised to cease her activities,” it said.Of course, beyond this being a rather blatant form of abuse, it seems noteworthy that this particular example was not included in the report that the NSA gave Congress in 2013 supposedly highlighting all of the examples of abuse. In fact, as you read through these reports, it appears that abuse and "mistakes" were fairly widespread. Here's opening one of the many reports at random and showing just a snippet of the listings:
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: abuse, christmas eve, nsa, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Next: the documents will be available in a computer in the Antarctic continent with only a 5"1/4 drive for those who want to copy them. Maybe stone tablets following. I mean, Christmas Eve is probably the worst they can do without actively hindering the access, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copying is THEFT! They can't allow that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about a good Friday release?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
Next: the documents will be available in a computer in the Antarctic continent with only a 5"1/4 drive for those who want to copy them.
You can all just pretend I pasted the Douglas Adams passage here. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least there's no leopards in Antarctica :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure this is not evidence of abuse. This is evidence that she was married to a potential terrorist and the NSA immediately took action. Job well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Play!
Obama proved that you can get ANYTHING by us American idiots! All you have to do is keep doing it rapidly and sequentially then you can catch them off guard easily.
Take a note republicans... Obama has shown you the way... the Dems did not reel their guy in, now its time for you Reps to do the same to them. Let the frenzy begin and be sure to rip America apart by ensuring that the Constitution, the Laws, and the Will of the People are shat upon without delay! Give'm what for!
This will fulfill the veritable prophecy left behind by President George Washington in his farewell address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Play!
Take a note democrats... Bush showed you the way... the Repugs did not reel their guy in, now its time for you Dems to do the same to them. Let the frenzy begin and be sure to rip America apart by ensuring that the Constitution, the Laws, and the Will of the People are shat upon without delay! Give'm what for!
Corrected
No need to thank me, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Play!
Side question? What makes you think I care anything for Bush just because I was attacking Obama?
Feeling defensive? I do admit that I have less respect for Obama than I do Bush, but if you bothered to really read my post then you would know that I do not like either of the two parties. I voted for neither of these assclowns!
You are a part of the problem with this country... Your "Obama" gets attacked and you feel offended instead of realizing that Obama = Bush? If you hated Bush, how in the hell can you even tolerate Obama? Obama is just another Bush with ALL of Bushes negative attributes amplified.
O yea, I keep forgetting... for people like you it only matters if there is a D or R next to that name if something is okay or not... carry on sheep person! carry on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
Nothing, but I think the point is that your attack on Obama was incorrect. He didn't "show the way". He is just following in the same time-honored tradition that all presidents have followed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
Using the lens of history to absolve Obama makes it clear you lack intellectual honesty. While there are always opinions when it comes to how one believes each President has done in their job there are some other very real facts. And Obama has, by the numbers alone, surpassed Bush's corruption quite effectively.
But I digress you Obama lovers just try to turn these things into a Bush vs Obama when these guys are cut from the same cloth. Bush finished the Terrorists work with America by creating DHS and the Patriot Act... Obama is using all of that power and then some.
Until we can find some way to educate idiots like you, we will never unshackle ourselves from the chains of the party system and the wars that plague mankind. You are so stuck on defending your very corrupt side until the bitter end that the only recourse will be to take lives to put a stop to it. This is never the way to go, but eventually someone that thinks just the way you do about things, but on the other side will come along and will begin the war all over again.
I will just sit back and watch you idiots destroy yourselves once again... not even with the wealth of history available you have yet to learn anything. Your kind apparently approves of "the ends justifying the means."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
I wasn't absolving anyone. Perhaps you should try to understand what I said before calling me intellectually dishonest.
"you Obama lovers"
That's fantastically funny. I am not an "Obama lover". That you think that I am merely displays your own distorted, bipolar, world view.
I think that you should read the rest of the comment you wrote there and think very carefully about it -- you could stand to learn something from your own words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
If you consider my view to be bipolar then I cannot help you. Yes I know exactly what my words mean for I formed them myself with a great deal of introspection and observation. I harbor no fantasy that I am the wisest on the planet but do easily recognize the foolishness of most. I know very well how these things will end, and yet, despite reviewing history I do still try to sway the minds of the foolish and ignorant to no avail.
Humanity will never resist it own iniquity, we will forever sit among ourselves and reason away sanity and create law and injustice to fit our machinations in the name of some perverse ideal. We follow our leaders to our own doom, this is why we reap what we sow. We all suffer at the hands of our governments because we foolishly believed them to be honest and well intending with society. Defend the corrupt at your own peril, they will ensure that you are "repaid" for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
You're still misunderstanding. Your original comment said, in effect, Obama started this. The replies were "no, other presidents did it before him." That isn't defending Obama.
If you consider my view to be bipolar then I cannot help you.
You seem to think that anyone disagreeing with you is in favor of Obama. That would be a non sequitur, and would reflect a fallacious view of the world that puts everyone into one of two categories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
The poster also did not imply that anyone that disagreed was in favor of Obama... what seems to be implied that "defending" Obama made them in favor of him. If you defend someones negative actions... well how can you NOT be in favor of them?
Not sure if you did all that to twist the debate but its important to clarify, perhaps the original poster should have done a better job at this but reading into things like this always leads to misunderstanding, it happens, but best to avoid when possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
Perhaps that isn't what he meant but that is what it sounds like to me, especially since after it was interpreted that way he didn't say anything to the effect of "I didn't mean Obama started it".
The poster also did not imply that anyone that disagreed was in favor of Obama... what seems to be implied that "defending" Obama made them in favor of him. If you defend someones negative actions... well how can you NOT be in favor of them?
You're making the same mistake he did. Nobody has defended Obama's actions. Pointing out that Obama was not the first to do it IS NOT defending Obama, or his actions. I can make a Nazi analogy if you like... but sometimes those don't help. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
The phrase "shown you the way" pretty much means "started it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Play!
Take a note democrats... Truman showed you the way... the Dems did not reel their guy in, now its time for you Reps to do the same to them. Let the frenzy begin and be sure to rip America apart by ensuring that the Constitution, the Laws, and the Will of the People are shat upon without delay! Give'm what for!
Corrected
No need to thank me, child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
That is why I brought up George Washington. He pretty much said this type of back and forth bullshit would happen if we keep going down the party system road. Boy was he right.
Neither party will purge their corrupt members and the citizens just keep voting down the party line regardless of what happens becoming polarized every time someone says something trashy about "their guy". We have been voting R or D repeatedly, for quite some time, while expecting different results. Someone said that this was the definition of insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Christmas Eve
Now why he's using a paper list is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Christmas Eve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: good play
And for anyone who bother to look into the issues, both the (R)etards and the (D)umb-asses are only in it for themselves.
/George Washington was right. 'Political Parties' are evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: good play
Whether someone voted or not, or whom they voted for is essentially immaterial to this. They have every right to comment on things that impact their lives. Your type of thinking is what is destroying the nation, you simply unable to understand why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: good play
Well, if we're going to go with that argument, then let's go all the way. Voting is necessary but woefully insufficient, so if all you're doing is voting, then you have no more right to comment than nonvoters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: good play
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: good play
I agree with Mark Twain: "The citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal, he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay, does not excuse him: it is his duty to agitate anyway, and it is the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: good play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: good play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: good play
After all, elections are infallible measures of the will of the people and what they want done, so if your guy/gal didn't win, then obviously the people disagree with your stance and views, and you should have no say in how things are done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: good play
But if only voters have a say to comment on the elected, then the elected should only dictate over those who voted them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I.e., if an NSA agent were ordered to do something which was an abuse of one of these programs, that would qualify as the NSA abusing its authority - but if an NSA agent with access under these programs just does something inappropriate with that access, on his or her own, that's not the NSA committing the abuse. It's an "institutional" vs. "individual" thing.
That's twisting definitions of words a bit, but much less than what the NSA has already done in other areas to justify these programs in the first place, and it would not in the least surprise me if they were intentionally using that narrower definition to be able to claim no abuse and have it be technically accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They always do that. Every denial from the NSA is very carefully worded to deny something other than what the question actually asks about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I completely agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice idea, but the news agencies these days are too spineless to actually follow through. They might lose out on some 'exclusives' after all, can't have that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice idea, but the news agencies these days are too spineless to actually follow through.
It's amazing to listen to some British reporters. They're like bulldogs compared to Americans. It's somewhere between disappointing and infuriating to see a reporter just let a politician off the hook if he's determined enough to dodge the question twice. It's like they think it's more important to get through all the questions than to actually get answers to some of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's exactly like you say, they prioritize making it through the list of questions, even if that means ignoring the ones that aren't answered, over actually having the questions answered, and everyone knows it.
Where they should be confrontational, asking questions and demanding answers, and being the ones in charge of the interview, instead, more often than not, they just let the politician run the show, lobbing a few weak questions, and completely ignoring it if those questions are brushed aside and dodged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our new reality?
Thus goes our best intelligence agencies thinking...at their best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our new reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did she have access to "her spouse's personal telephone directory" through the NSA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Cease her activities" is the response??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Firdays and holidays
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
er...FRIDAYS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My question is, at this point does the NSA forward those selectors to GCHQ so that they can continue seizing and searching American selector information from outside the country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their way of thinking...
NSA boss: What!? Are you out of your mind? We will tell our employees that they can't do that... unless they can do it without getting caught. Then we will just make sure it becomes legal.
Or not... it is not like anyone is going to, or could, punish us anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden explains how they spy on you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's something bad we have to tell you
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
But only because of the ACLU
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
While we read your communication
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
We haven't stuck to legislation
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHO is this "customer" of the NSA AND why can they ask for data from the SIGINT database?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
He's making a list,
Checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
With little tin horns and little toy drums
Rooty toot toots and rummy tum tums
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
Goodness sake
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming
NSA is coming
NSA is coming to town
(Coming to town)
NSA's a busy man he has no time to play
He's got millions of stockings to fill on Christmas day
(NSA is coming to town)
(Coming to town)
(NSA is coming to town)
(Coming to town)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA - Partial File Release
Anyone performing substantive analysis of the file content? Interested in comparing methods/notes. Thanks!
Patrick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]