NSA's Chief Privacy Officer Admits That Maybe The NSA Shouldn't Rely On 'Cute' Interpretations Of The Law
from the ya-think? dept
Almost exactly a year ago, the NSA announced the hiring of Rebecca Richards to be its Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer, leading many to exclaim, wait, the NSA has that job? Indeed it does. Though we haven't heard much from Richards since that hiring, she did appear on the latest "Cyberlaw Podcast" with Techdirt's number one fanboy, Stewart Baker.During the podcast, Richards admits what many of us have been arguing for years (since even before the Snowden revelations), that the NSA is probably making a mistake in relying on "cute" interpretations of the law to claim that it has legal justifications for its actions:
"If the law on it's face does not–if you have to go through too many contorted legal [inaudible], I mean what is legal? That's where we need to, not have perhaps cute legal interpretations."This was in response to a question from Baker, in which he claims that it was "devastating" for the NSA to get criticized when it believed everything it was doing was legal. Baker suggests that the NSA is shocked that "staying on the right side of the law didn't actually protect the agency from disaster."
Except that's the problem, isn't it? These "cute" and (more importantly) "secret" interpretations of the law aren't about actually staying legal. It's about giving the appearance of being legal and letting the NSA's leadership pretend that what they're doing is okay because someone crafted a twisted legal argument -- not because it's actually the right thing to do. In fact, as we noted the week after the Snowden revelations, the really disturbing thing wasn't even in the actions themselves, but the very idea that what the NSA was doing might actually have been legal. When you're twisting the law in such a way, that you can't even admit to the public how you're twisting the law, then how could it possibly be a surprise when people get upset to learn how you've been twisting the law?
The really amazing thing is how tone-deaf Baker, Michael Hayden, Keith Alexander and others are to this argument. They insist up and down that revealing these "secret interpretations" of the law would somehow harm US intelligence practices, yet they can't fathom why the public might possibly be upset that their secret interpretations of the law appear to counter the plain wording of the law.
This should be rather simple: if the public knows what the law says and what it means, then the public won't get surprised when it finds out that the NSA acted within the law. The only problem comes when we find out that the NSA has stretched the interpretation of the law to be completely contrary to the plain language of the law. Don't want the public to get upset? Don't twist the law -- or at least be transparent about your twisted belief in what the law says. The law should never be secret. The interpretation of the law should never be secret. Sure, the NSA can keep certain sources and methods secret -- but that is entirely separate from the question of legal authority.
And yet, Baker still insists that merely revealing the twisted interpretation of the law would somehow reveal sources and methods:
"Isn't the problem there, you say I'm not going to have cute or aggressive legal interpretations, but if you want to explain to people what your new interpretation is you kinda have to put it in a context of facts, and context of facts gives a lot away about how your program actually works."First of all, it's difficult to see how that would be true -- unless, again, that interpretation of the law is questionable and not in line with what the law actually says. What Baker is saying here is a defense of secret law, arguing that the government should be able to make up its own interpretation of the law and then keep it secret. That is the antithesis of democracy. Yet that's what he advocates for.
And, ridiculously, Richards immediately agrees:
"I don't disagree. I think this is a work in progress."As Conor Friedersdorf notes in posting his take on this story, the answer Richards should have given was:
Transparency about what the law actually says is a non-negotiable part of having a government by and for the people. Without at least that much transparency, representative democracy cannot function properly.But, apparently, even the "civil liberties" person at the NSA doesn't seem to recognize that fact.
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: civil liberties, nsa, privacy, rebecca richards, secret law, stewart baker, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Have they asked if the people aren't actually willing to deal with such harm just to be sure? And that if they reveal such interpretations and gain back popular trust they might even get actual support from the citizenry?
And if it harms their practices then they should act like any half-decent intel agency and UPGRADE such practices. What they can't do is violate constitutional rights, privacy and trust repeatedly with no excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smells like a duck to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Cop / Bad Cop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Cop / Bad Cop
I believe you misspelled "PR flack."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
Torture would be things that actually hurt you. Pulling your nails off. Breaking fingers. Electrocution, Stabbing, to the rally bad stuff, Burning you alive or slowly cutting off your head while alive!!! There's really no coming back from that. You're DEAD!!!! The others are painful, maybe you'll die from it in time. Water boarding, please, what a joke. Once it's over, There's not a mark on you. Quite frankly a little water boarding or music is 10000000 times better then anything you would get if things were reversed. That's a proven fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
"Our enemies are worse. I do have first-hand knowledge about this issue."
I believe you, but I don't see how that's meaningful in discussions about US torture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Our enemies are worse"
Consider, say, human sacrifice. That those guys throw fifteen children into the volcano once a year, doesn't make it any better that we throw three children into the volcano once a year.
A more real, contemporary example: China's 10 giga-ton carbon footprint doesn't make our 5 giga-ton carbon footprint more justifiable.
Our torture program, and that we actually try to legally condone it helps to retroactively justify the 9/11 attacks, and all future campaigns of terror against the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "Cute" rulings started long ago.
It's a danger of allowing the letter of the law be interpreted or capable of interpretation, is that eventually the law is meaningless in that it can be turned in on itself to mean anything.
Taking a page from district attorney Harvey Dent, eventually you're better off flipping a coin to determine guilt or innocence, than turning to the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are half wrong.
These "interpretations" of the law are most certainly not about giving an appearance of being legal: if they were, they would not need to remain secret. They are exclusively a tool of pretense and (quite implausible) deniability.
They are of the "Oh, you hurt me, Judge. Nobody here would think about breaking your arm. I mean, the law. Did I say arm? How silly of me." variety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO!/s....RE-ALLYY!/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws are always for the little people.
Problems come when the system allows for big people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happy to see a glimmer
I'm happy to see even a glimmer of recognition that being legal (cute interpretations of the law or not) isn't actually sufficient to excuse the behavior. Being legal is not the same as being ethical or right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the NSA's world, I should have pointed out that her use of "context" was unfair... and my mom would have realized that I was right and handed me a bottle of Scotch and bought me a Ferrari.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Addendum
but as long as the public is allowed to ask questions and as long as the federal government has to pretend to follow the law, the NSA will just have to keep on re-interpreting the law to suit its needs and use these 'cute' interpretations to circumvent the law and the public good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]