NSA Chief Defends Facial Recognition Database By Denying Claims That Weren't Made

from the we-don't-do-the-things-no-one-says-we-do dept

James Clapper's defense of leaked NSA programs have fallen into the "strictly legal + oversight" framework so often it's become a cliche that can be ably wielded by lower level staffers. Occasionally, Clapper fires off something longer, like his defense of the NSA's collection of French phone metadata. During this longer "debunking," Clapper denied accusations that were never made by attacking a lousy translation of the original French article. This provided for some plausible deniability ("NSA does not collect recordings"), even if the underlying claims -- correctly translated -- pointed to something the agency was actually doing (bulk phone metadata collection).

The new head of the NSA, Michael Rogers, is doing the same thing. Addressing the latest New York Times' article on the NSA's collection of images for its facial recognition database, Rogers denies claims that were never made and accusations that were never stated.

Rogers insisted the agency was not collecting such images of U.S. citizens, unless they were linked with an investigation of a foreign subject, and then only after taking the appropriate legal steps.

"We do not do this on some unilateral basis against U.S. citizens," he told a conference hosted by Bloomberg. "We just don’t ... decide, 'Hey, today I’m going to go after Citizen X, Y or Z.' We don’t do that. We can’t legally do that."

He said some people thought the NSA was combing through databases of photographs for U.S. drivers licenses but said that was not the case.

In terms of collecting images, no one stated anything to the contrary. The collection is likely operating like many other NSA collections -- on a large scale that increases the likelihood that incidental collection of American data and content will occur. The "appropriate legal steps" are the same ones that have been used as talking points over the last year.

Likewise, no one suggested in the article that the NSA targeted US citizens. In fact, one of the biggest complaints about the NSA's programs is the fact that they're clearly untargeted. The NSA doesn't select a person and start the surveillance from that point. The surveillance is pervasive and ongoing and any selection tends to occur long after tons of data/communications have been collected. It's the after-the-fact nature of the programs that makes them so dangerous. Further, the lack of solid minimization rules means tons of data from bulk collections sits around in NSA servers just waiting for someone to find a reason to look through it. So, while the NSA may not "unilaterally target American citizens," it has the mechanisms in place to do so.

As for Roger's last non-denial, it was clearly stated in the New York Times article that there was no indication that the NSA had access to US drivers license databases. Rogers' last denial addresses "some people" (whoever they are) that have a clearly wrong interpretation of the leaked documents, but doesn't address what was actually written. And it completely avoids the undeniable fact that, with as many "input" channels as the NSA has, collecting the sort of information a drivers license database holds would be simple enough, even without direct access.

Rogers also doesn't address the previous denial handed out by a spokesperson who refused to clarify whether or not the NSA collects images of Americans from social media outlets like Facebook or Twitter. Instead, Rogers focuses on the anonymous concerns of people who may or may not exist. Plausible deniability, delivered implausibly.

Filed Under: admiral mike rogers, face recognition, nsa, surveillance

New NSA Boss' Understatement Of The Year: NSA 'Has Lost A Measure Of Trust' From The Public

from the depends-on-what-'measure' dept

New NSA boss Admiral Mike Rogers (once again, a different guy than NSA "overseer" and "chief #1 fan" Rep. Mike Rogers) has kicked off his new job by significantly understating the current predicament of the NSA with regards to its relationship with the public. In fact, count the multiple understatements in his comments:

“I tell the [NSA] workforce out there as the new guy, let’s be honest with each other, the nation has lost a measure of trust in us,” Admiral Michael Rogers told a conference of the Women in Aerospace conference in Crystal City, Va.

"A measure of trust." I guess that depends on exactly what "measure" you're talking about, but I'd start with a fairly large one, and then go up from there. And then up some more.

In the future, he said, “If we make a mistake, you will hear about it. That’s my job as director and I have no problem with it. ... We are not going to hide our mistakes.”

Yes, the director of the agency which once denied its own existence and was referred to as No Such Agency is claiming the agency won't hide its mistakes? Pretty much the only thing that the NSA does is hide its own activities. That's its core competence. Hiding everything that it does, which all too frequently includes its mistakes.

“The whole media leaks issue as we call it, has caused quite a stir,” said Rogers, who was sworn in as director of NSA and assumed command of U.S. Cyber Command at the beginning of April.

"Lost a measure of trust," "media leaks issue," "quite a stir." Yes, Admiral Rogers is the master of the understatement.

And, for all the talk about how the NSA won't hide from its mistakes, rather than taking responsibility for its mistakes, Admiral Rogers takes the easy way out: blame the media!

Rogers didn’t lay complete responsibility at the doorstep of the NSA: He blamed public mistrust on the way the newsmedia had framed the issues raised in the Snowden revelations.

“From my perspective the debate and the dialogue to date have been very uneven,” he said.

“Your neighbors are saying to you: ‘Man, I’ve been listening about you on the TV and reading about you in the papers and I had no idea what a bad person you are,’” he joked.

That's a joke?

He said the NSA and its staff had to work to “earn and sustain” Americans’ trust, but could not be too open about the work of the ultra-secret agency, which specializes in electronic eavesdropping and other surveillance using the latest high technology.

Wait. I thought he was just saying that the NSA wouldn't hide from its mistakes any more (note that he has still yet to admit to a mistake, but instead, blamed the media for everything).

“I believe in transparency and I will be as transparent as possible, but I also have to be mindful that in doing so I cannot undermine the specifics of what we’re doing” to protect the country, he said.

“To do that [be transparent] I have to get out of my comfort zone,” he acknowledged. “I have to walk that tightrope.”

So, he doesn't know how to be transparent, but he believes in transparency.

To sum up, Admiral Rogers appears to be saying that the NSA lost some trust because of a "media leak" which caused "a bit of a stir," and because of that he's going to embrace transparency and not hide from his mistakes. But... at the same time, he won't admit to a single mistake, and it's really all the press's fault for misreporting on things that need to be kept secret. And, also, he believes in transparency so much that he admits he isn't comfortable with transparency, and if he's actually transparent, we might all die.

That's not exactly going to win back any of the "measure" of trust the NSA lost there...

Filed Under: admiral mike rogers, nsa, surveillance, transparency, trust

60 Days After Being Asked, James Clapper Finally Answers Ron Wyden's Question About Collecting US Citizens' Communications

from the and-it's-a-'yes;'-it's-ALWAYS-a-'yes' dept

The game of 20 questions (National Security Edition) has finally paid off, weeks after the question was asked. Ron Wyden, one of the few legislators willing to pin down (or at least attempt to -- the NATSEC reps are a slippery bunch) exactly what the NSA is up to, has received a response to one his pointed questions. (Wyden's ability to ask precisely the right question has pretty much turned any intel official's answer along the lines of "we can't discuss this publicly for national security reasons" into a de facto "yes.")

[I]n a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has confirmed for the first time this backdoor had been used in practice to search for data related to “US persons”.

“There have been queries, using US person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence targeting non-US persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States,” Clapper wrote in the letter, which has been obtained by the Guardian.

“These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.”

So, there's the admission Wyden was seeking back on January 29th, but the story goes back much further than that. This is something that has been denied and obfuscated since the leaks began back in June of last year. The NSA (along with other agencies most likely) can grab American's communications without a warrant. It claims this is all legit because the agency "reasonably believes" these communications serve its foreign intelligence directive.

Clapper disingenuously points out that this was discussed during the debate over the renewal of Section 702 late last year.

“As you know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately not adopted,” Clapper wrote.

Of course, no one had access to this information as Clapper and others had yet to officially acknowledge this backdoor.

But someone did know about this backdoor, and he's known about it for months: new director of the NSA, Mike Rogers.

It has taken just 9 months for Clapper to admit that, contrary to months of denials, the NSA (and FBI, which he doesn’t confirm but which the Report makes clear, as well as the CIA) can get the content of Americans’ communications without a warrant.

But Clapper’s admission that this fact was declassified in August should disqualify Vice Admiral Mike Rogers from confirmation as CyberComm head (I believe he started serving as DIRNSA head, which doesn’t require confirmation, yesterday). Because it means Rogers refused to answer a question the response to which was already declassified.

Again, the NSA, for all intents and purposes, has no oversight. Ron Wyden serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee and he's one of the few in this position who will actually attempt to extract info from closed-lipped intelligence officials. Despite his efforts, it took two months for him to obtain an answer that was declassified in August 2013. That's how the system actually works, but those defending the obfuscation artists charged with national security keep foisting their utopian dreamscape of checks and balances on the agency's many critics.

Filed Under: admiral mike rogers, backdoor loophole, james clapper, nsa, odni, ron wyden, surveillance, warrantless searches, warrants

Next NSA Boss Thinks NSA Just Needs Better PR; And Kicks It Off With A Bunch Of Cyberwar FUD

from the new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss dept

Vice Admiral Mike Rogers (not to be confused with Rep. Mike Rogers) is pretty much all set to take over for Keith Alexander as both the new head of the NSA and the new head of US Cyber Command. These are the two organizations that the government likes to pretend are separate, but clearly are not (same boss, same offices, same basic goals). While the Senate has no say in approving the NSA appointment, they do have a say in approving the head of US Cyber Command, so the hearings are really covering both positions. Appearing before the Senate, Rogers has made it clear that he's cut from the same cloth as Alexander, and will basically continue the same kind of misleading FUD. When asked about "takeaways" from the past few months, Rogers claimed that the NSA really just needed better PR:

"I believe one of the takeaways form the situation over the last few months is that as an intelligence professional...I have to be capable of communicating in a way that highlights what we are doing and why to the greatest extent possible," Rogers said to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Yeah, like that's going to work. And, by "better communicating" it appears that Admiral Rogers really means spreading more FUD about how we need to ramp up our "offensive" "cyber" attack capabilities. This is the same crap that Alexander has been pushing for years, when the simple truth is that the US (NSA) has been among the most aggressive on that front already, and the "threats" that it discusses are almost always things that the NSA/USCC are actually doing itself, rather than things that are being done to us.

As for any actual reform? Don't expect that under Admiral Rogers, as Marcy Wheeler highlights, Rogers seems to have the obfuscation-about-things-already-public game down pat.

Filed Under: admiral mike rogers, cybersecurity, fud, nsa, surveillance, us cyber command