Some NSA Officials Favor Giving Snowden Limited Amnesty For All The Wrong Reasons

from the but-it-won't-happen dept

CBS News has a report, which apparently will air as part of this weekend's 60 Minutes, in which it's suggested that some top NSA officials favor granting amnesty to Ed Snowden. There actually are a number of good reasons why the US absolutely should give him amnesty. During an interview with 60 Minutes' John Miller, the NSA's Rick Ledgett, who is in charge of the task force trying to prevent another Snowden-like leak, admitted that he thought it made sense to grant Snowden amnesty:

JOHN MILLER: He's already said, "If I got amnesty, I would come back." Given the potential damage to national security, what would your thought on making a deal be?

RICK LEDGETT: So, my personal view is, yes, it's worth having a conversation about. I would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured, and my bar for those assurances would be very high. It would be more than just an assertion on his part.

Of course, note the "assurances" necessary. He'd basically have to agree that the "remainder of the data could be secured" and that's clearly not even remotely possible, since those documents have been spread out to a number of third parties already. The reason for granting amnesty is as a recognition that Snowden was, in fact, a whistleblower, who exposed an agency that had gone way too far and then directly lied to Congress about it.

But, of course, even that limited impossible amnesty is too much for NSA boss General Keith Alexander, who apparently thinks in bogus analogies rather than basic cost-benefit analysis.

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: This is analogous to a hostage-taker taking 50 people hostage, shooting 10 and then say, "If you give me full amnesty, I'll let the other 40 go." What do you do?

Except that's not analogous at all. It's actually analogous to someone calling out bad behavior and then saying "if you don't prosecute me for bogus reasons, I can help you fix and stop your bad behavior." That seems like a good thing.

MILLER: It's a dilemma.

GEN. ALEXANDER: It is.

MILLER: Do you have a pick?

GEN. ALEXANDER: I do. I think people have to be held accountable for their actions. ... Because what we don't want is the next person to do the same thing, race off to Hong Kong and to Moscow with another set of data, knowing they can strike the same deal.

Actions like... violations of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? Lying to the American public? Mass surveillance on Americans and foreigners? Actions like purposely putting security holes in technology standards making us all less safe? Actions like "accidentally" spying on people the NSA is not allowed to spy on?

Why then, yes, I actually agree with General Alexander that people have to be held accountable for their actions. I guess he doesn't think that statement applies to himself.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, amnesty, ed snowden, keith alexander, nsa, rick ledgett

Intelligence Task Force To Recommend Cosmetic Changes... While The White House Pre-Rejects The Biggest One

from the that's-the-punchline,-right? dept

Remember the supposedly "independent, outside experts" that President Obama had invited to be on a task force to review the NSA's surveillance? The same task force that was actually set up by and reported to director of national intelligence James Clapper? The one that was actually made up of intelligence community insiders, who kicked things off by having two of its key members not bother to to show up for a meeting with civil libertarian groups?

Right. So their report is "due" to be delivered this Sunday, and some of the details have leaked. While the Wall Street Journal suggested that the recommendations would "constitute a sweeping overhaul of the National Security Agency", almost everyone looking at the details suggests something completely different. Instead, it's looking a lot more like some stern language accompanied by cosmetic changes that "leave spying programs largely unchanged." For example, it appears to recommend that bulk collection of metadata continue, but potentially with that data residing at the telcos, instead of in the NSA's own databases.

If that sounds familiar, it's because this is exactly the "concession" that NSA boss Keith Alexander himself proposed. When the task force is directly pitching the same "solution" the NSA's own boss has proposed, that's hardly a "sweeping overhaul".

Oh, and what appears to be one somewhat substantive move suggested in the report -- definitively splitting the NSA and the US Cyber Command -- has already been pre-rejected by the White House. If you don't recall, these are supposedly two different organizations -- but they're currently both run by Keith Alexander and are housed in the same place. The NSA is supposed to just be obtaining "signals intelligence", not conducting offensive operations. US Cyber Command, on the other hand, does conduct offensive operations, launching numerous attacks on computing systems around the globe. Many, many people see significant problems with this, as the roles of the two can be merged in dangerous ways -- such as rather than having the groups protect the US from computer attacks, having them help to create new vulnerabilities for their own purposes (basically, exactly what's happening).

Many have argued that Cyber Command should have civilian rather than military leadership, and the task force is rumored to support this. But without the report officially being delivered, the White House has already flatly rejected the idea.

“Following a thorough interagency review, the administration has decided that keeping the positions of NSA Director and Cyber Command Commander together as one, dual-hatted position is the most effective approach to accomplishing both agencies’ missions,” White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in an e-mail

So, we end up with a task force report that has cosmetic changes to the surveillance program, and one big change they're going to recommend has already been dismissed out of hand before the recommendation was even made. In other words, this whole task force was as much of a farce as everyone expected.

Remember how, when President Obama set it up, the main purpose was to supposedly "restore the trust" of the American public in what the NSA is doing? That doesn't seem to be working.

Filed Under: barack obama, intelligence task force, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance, surveillance, task force, us cyber command

Keith Alexander Tells Senators He Can't Think Of Any Other Way To Keep The US Safe Other Than Bulk Metadata Collections

from the oh,-he-knows-other-ways...-he-just-doesn't-like-them dept

NSA head Gen. Alexander once again appeared before the Senate to defend his agency's actions and to deliver the talking points in an effort to head off a number of pieces of legislation aimed at rolling back the NSA's powers.

If the NSA has a chance to hold off what now appears to be near inevitable, it will need to update its rhetorical ploys. Alexander offered nothing much in the way of new arguments, which is only going to hurt the agency's position. It looks as though the old stuff isn't really working anymore. His assertion that the Section 215 program has led to 50+ terrorist attacks averted has disintegrated. Sen. Leahy raised additional questions about the efficiency of the 702 program (internet metadata) in the hunting terrorists. No answer was forthcoming but the agency head implied it would take much longer than next Wednesday's hearing to come up with an answer.

No surprises here either, as Gen. Alexander almost literally played the 9/11 card.

"Metadata is a way of knowing where those books are in the library, and a way of focusing our collection... to knowing, where are the bad books," Alexander says.

He holds up an index card – it's meant to be an old-style card-catalog card (sorry, millennials) – on which are listed the categories of information encompassed by "metadata": time, date, duration, contact numbers.

Then he returns to the 9/11 attacks and says, as he always does, that the attack might have been stopped by a metadata collection program like the USA has now.

Might have been. Except it wasn't. Sen. Leahy called Alexander out for using this tired ploy.

Leahy jumps in and says the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks also has been put down to a failure to communicate within the intelligence community. US agents had the info they needed, they just failed to share it with one another.

There's no tread left on those tires, General. The Guardian points out this is the first time Alexander has been interrupted while deploying the "could have prevented 9/11" argument.

This wasn't the only used-up rhetoric Alexander deployed. He defended the bulk collections by claiming he "didn't know" a "better" way to protect Americans from terrorism.

"I don't know a better way to do it,” he said. "It's like holding onto a hornets' nest. We're getting stung. You've asked us to do this for the good of the nation … nobody's thought of a better way. We can't let the nation down."

That was Alexander's justification. There's no other way but a bulk, untargeted metadata collection containing millions of records of non-suspects.

But when Alexander says there's no other way to keep Americans safe, he's (no surprise) lying. There is another way and Alexander knows it because the NSA was forced (by the FISA court) to accomplish the task of fighting terrorism without being given access to millions of non-relevant phone records. FISA Judge Walton's orders, which followed on the heels of the admission of widespread abuse of the Section 215 collections, forced the NSA to seek court approval just to search what had previously been collected.

Since the March 5, 2009 FISA Court order, the Court's approval has been required for each selector before it is tasked for BR FISA metadata analysis. On Mar 21 NSA resumed manual access to BR FISA metadata, allowing chaining [redacted] of FISA Court-approved selectors associated with [redacted] following multiple operational and technical reviews to ensure compliance.

As Judge Walton noted then, the collection itself seemed to be overkill and prone to abuse.

The minimization procedures… have been so frequently and systemically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall BR regime has never functioned effectively.

Nearly all of the call detail records collected pertain to communications of non-US persons who are not the subject of an FBI investigation… [or] are communications of US persons who are not the subject of an FBI investigation… and are data that otherwise could not be legally captured in bulk by the government.

So, there are other ways to accomplish this and the agency has had to work within stricter limitations in the past. The multiple flaws in Alexander's assertions are highlighted in this statement. Most of what's collected isn't pertinent to investigations and is, in fact, bordering on illegal. The only thing saving Alexander's favorite collection is some very favorable readings of the Third Party Doctrine and secret interpretations of the laws governing these data hauls.

Legislative efforts being made aim to roll back some of this power, something Alexander can't bear to see happen. If nothing else, a neutral storage site that can only be accessed by court-aprroved RAS selectors would be a start. But according to the chief spy, these limitations would lead to another 9/11. He wants it all and he wants unfettered access. There are other ways of compiling and searching metadata. Alexander knows this, but he has no interest in a more targeted approach.

This is Alexander's "hornet nest." Any stings he collects while handling it are solely his fault. If he doesn't like the pain associated with handling the hornet's nest, maybe he shouldn't have fought so hard to keep holding it.

Filed Under: 9/11, bulk data collection, fud, keith alexander, nsa, surveillance, terror

NSA Spied On Porn Habits Of 'Radicalizers,' Planned To Use Details To Embarrass Them

from the j-edgar-alexander dept

The latest report on leaked Snowden docs from Glenn Greenwald (along with Ryan Gallagher and Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post) shows how the NSA had a plan to use the porn surfing habits of certain people they didn't like to discredit them. If this brings back memories of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, effectively blackmailing politicians, you've connected the dots. This is why we've said that even people who think they've done nothing wrong, should be wary of the NSA spying on everyone. It's easy to turn even legal behavior, like surfing porn, into a personal embarrassment. It's important to note here that the "targets" in this case are not US persons, and they all do appear to dislike the US, and some appear to have advocated for jihad against the US. However, as the report notes, most of them are not terrorists or even connected to any terrorist organization. They're just activists and advocates who have spoken out criticizing the US. In one case, a guy was targeted for claiming that "the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself" -- an argument that plenty of respectable people have made. The lack of any terrorist connection is actually, stunningly, used against these individuals, as one NSA document notes that since they don't communicate with terrorists it's worse because it suggests "that the target audience includes individuals who do not yet hold extremist views but who are susceptible to the extremist message." One can argue, as former NSA and DHS official Stewart Baker does in the article, that this kind of prying through someone's private life to embarrass them in public is "fairer and maybe more humane" than dropping bombs on them but that assumes an either/or sort of situation, which I'd like to believe that even someone like Baker doesn't actually believe.

And, really, the real issue here is the clear slippery slope. It's reasonable to argue that the US should be spying on terrorists who want to attack us. That's a mission that makes sense. But there's a pretty big gap between spying on terrorists who are trying to kill us, and snooping through the private activities of those with an audience who just don't like us. And, from there, of course, it's not a very far leap over to arguing that activists within the US who are critical of the government should be subject to the same treatment.

While Baker and others support using surveillance to tarnish the reputation of people the NSA considers "radicalizers," U.S. officials have in the past used similar tactics against civil rights leaders, labor movement activists and others.

Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI harassed activists and compiled secret files on political leaders, most notably Martin Luther King, Jr. The extent of the FBI's surveillance of political figures is still being revealed to this day, as the bureau releases the long dossiers it compiled on certain people in response to Freedom of Information Act requests following their deaths. The information collected by the FBI often centered on sex -- homosexuality was an ongoing obsession on Hoover's watch -- and information about extramarital affairs was reportedly used to blackmail politicians into fulfilling the bureau's needs.

[....] James Bamford, a journalist who has been covering the NSA since the early 1980s, said the use of surveillance to exploit embarrassing private behavior is precisely what led to past U.S. surveillance scandals. "The NSA's operation is eerily similar to the FBI's operations under J. Edgar Hoover in the 1960s where the bureau used wiretapping to discover vulnerabilities, such as sexual activity, to 'neutralize' their targets," he said. "Back then, the idea was developed by the longest serving FBI chief in U.S. history, today it was suggested by the longest serving NSA chief in U.S. history."

Baker -- the same guy who blamed civil libertarians for 9/11 and blamed privacy advocates for an over-aggressive TSA -- brushes off the idea that the NSA might ever abuse this stated program of spying on people's personal lives and habits to discredit them publicly.

Baker said that until there is evidence the tactic is being abused, the NSA should be trusted to use its discretion. "The abuses that involved Martin Luther King occurred before Edward Snowden was born," he said. "I think we can describe them as historical rather than current scandals. Before I say, 'Yeah, we've gotta worry about that,' I'd like to see evidence of that happening, or is even contemplated today, and I don't see it."

We're not exactly talking ancient history here. The abuses happened within Baker's own lifetime, even if they didn't happen within Snowden's. But the idea that within a single generation we've suddenly created more virtuous humans who won't abuse power is kind of laughable, and I'm curious as to what Baker's basis for believing that is. For someone who has spent so much of his career trying to help the hunt for bad guys, he sure has an optimistic view of the intentions of human beings. Oh, I forget, he's only talking about people on "our side" who I guess are naturally virtuous -- whereas folks on the other side are naturally morally destitute. Because that makes no sense at all, which seems to be the kind of arguments that Baker gravitates to.

Either way, it's exactly this kind of activity that has so many people concerned about the NSA. They're clearly not just spying on terrorist communications for the sake of preventing an attack. Now they're directly talking about using private information, like the fact that someone surfs porn or is "attracted to fame" to do character assassinations of people they dislike. The ability to abuse such a power is vast, and it's laughable to think that the NSA is so full of perfectly virtuous people that it would never make use of such powers.

Filed Under: embarrassment, keith alexander, nsa, porn habits, stewart baker

Keith Alexander Offered To Resign, But White House Said No Because It Didn't Want Snowden To Win

from the petty-petty-petty dept

One of the really big questions many of us have had throughout the revelations of the NSA's scandals is how the hell have Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and NSA boss Keith Alexander kept their jobs through all of this. Clapper has been caught directly lying to Congress. Alexander has been shown to have been extraordinarily misleading, if he hasn't outright lied. Furthermore, it's been revealed that both have overseen massive levels of dysfunction and abuse within the NSA (even as they try to spin them as no big deal). And, even among NSA supporters, there's an argument to be made that Alexander should be fired for having system security so weak it allowed Snowden to do what he did undetected, even months after the basics were revealed. So now it's come out, via a report by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal, that Alexander did, in fact, offer to resign but that the White House rejected the request, because they didn't want to hand Snowden a victory.

Shortly after former government contractor Edward Snowden revealed himself in June as the source of leaked National Security Agency documents, the agency's director, Gen. Keith Alexander, offered to resign, according to a senior U.S. official. The offer, which hasn't previously been reported, was declined by the Obama administration....

[....] When the leaks began, some top administration officials found their confidence in Gen. Alexander shaken because he presided over a grave security lapse, a former senior defense official said. But the officials also didn't think his resignation would solve the security problem and were concerned that letting him leave would wrongly hand Mr. Snowden a win, the former defense official said.

That's a ridiculous reason, if true. And, unfortunately, it shows the ridiculous anti-whistleblower mindset of the White House. It's not about correcting actual problems, it's all about making sure that we punish the whistleblower, and don't let him get any "victory." That's a huge mistake that makes the White House look out of touch, out of control and unable to recognize where the real problems are.

President Obama has stated repeatedly that these revelations have resulted in a necessary discussion and that he needs to earn the trust of the American public on the NSA spying. Getting rid of Alexander and Clapper, and starting fresh, would have been a good start to doing that. Playing defense and trying to avoid Snowden "winning" just looks... childish.

Filed Under: barack obama, ed snowden, james clapper, keith alexander, nsa, resignations, surveillance

NSA Still Not Sure What Snowden Took, But May Try To Pre-empt Future Leaks

from the getting-ahead-of-the-story dept

We've been among those who have suggested that the best way for the NSA to deal with the upcoming NSA leaks is to just stop lying and come clean about what they're doing. It's such a crazy suggestion that even former NSA boss Bobby Ray Inman has suggested it as well. It looks like the NSA is considering revealing something, but it's likely to be pretty limited:

With respect to other information held by Snowden and his allies but not yet publicized, the NSA is now considering a proactive release of some of the less sensitive material, to better manage the debate over its surveillance program.

"We're working on how do we do that," says Richard Ledgett, the NSA official in charge of the agency's response to the Snowden disclosures.

This came following a story about Keith Alexander claiming that Snowden may have taken "up to 200,000" documents with him -- a number that has generated some headlines. Of course, when you read the details, you realize that while Alexander quoted a range that had 200,000 as the ceiling, it also notes that officials at the NSA "remain unsure which documents he downloaded for leaking to the media." Yes, nearly six months in, they still don't know what he took. And this is the agency saying that they have such great audits that no one can abuse their systems? Really?

Glenn Greenwald has already mocked the claim of 200,000 documents (and, I was pretty sure in the past he had put the number in the tens of thousands -- closer to 60,000). But, once again, we're left wondering how the NSA can claim it has controls in place when it still has no idea what happened. Either way, open on up, NSA. Let's see what you've got. I'm sure that each attempt to spin things will be quickly debunked by actual documents from Snowden.

Filed Under: audits, eric holder, keith alexander, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, pre-emptive leaks, surveillance

John McCain Now Pretends He Didn't Say Keith Alexander Should Resign; Gives Nonsensical Explanation

from the accountability-how? dept

We just wrote about Senator John McCain calling for NSA boss Keith Alexander to either be fired or resign -- though for the exact wrong reasons. Specifically, he wants him fired for letting little people like Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning have access to important documents and also for having embarrassing facts (like that we spy on McCain's friends in high places, like Angela Merkel) revealed. Let's be clear. Here is McCain's exact quote:

SPIEGEL: Should Keith Alexander, head of the NSA, resign?

McCain: Of course, they should resign or be fired.

While a bit odd that McCain would refer to Alexander as plural, it's hard to say that he didn't say that. But, guess what? His press people are now trying to walk this back, and saying that McCain did not say what he actually said.

“Senator McCain believes that there needs to be accountability for the Snowden leaks, but he is not calling for the resignation of General Alexander, who is retiring soon,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told POLITICO. < ?i>

Actually, he did call for his resignation (or firing). Quite directly, as noted above. Separately, just what kind of "accountability" is he calling for? In the interview, he clearly said those responsible should be fired or resign. Of course, perhaps someone reminded him that Alexander is an "important person" like himself, Merkel and other top politicians, and he realized that "accountability" only applies to the little people.

Filed Under: accountability, ed snowden, john mccain, keith alexander

John McCain Says That Keith Alexander Should Be Fired... For All The Wrong Reasons

from the what-about-prosecuted dept

Senator John McCain, who is certainly considered more "hawkish" on national intelligence and thus a lot more likely to support the NSA, made some interesting statements in a recent interview with the German paper Der Spiegel, including saying that President Obama should fire Keith Alexander. While that might surprise you, the reality is that he does so for all the wrong reasons -- mainly, he doesn't blame Alexander for illegal spying. He blames Alexander for letting word get out that we were spying on "friends."

SPIEGEL: Are the intelligence services out of control?

McCain: There has not been sufficient congressional oversight, and there has been an absolutely disgraceful sharing of information that never should have taken place. For many years, we had an absolute provision that any classified information, which was going to be shared, is based on need-to-know information. I was a Navy pilot and had Top Secret clearance because I was in a squadron that in case of war with Russia would carry nuclear weapons. But that did not mean that I was privy to everything to do with all of our war plans in case of a nuclear war.

SPIEGEL: That means that you only knew what you absolutely had to know.

McCain: Yes. Then along came 9/11 and we said, "Oh, one of the reasons why we didn't know about 9/11 is that we didn't do enough information sharing." So now we have a private in the Army with access to most secret cables.

SPIEGEL: You mean Private First Class Bradley Manning, now Chelsea, who leaked thousands of secret documents to Wikileaks.

McCain: And now we have a contractor employee, not a government employee, who has access to information which is, when revealed, most damaging to the standing prestige of the United States and our relations with some of our best friends. Why did Edward Snowden have that information? And what are we doing as far as screening people who have access to this information? It's outrageous, and someone ought to be held accountable.

SPIEGEL: Who must be held accountable?

McCain: The head of the NSA, the president of the United States, the Congressional Intelligence Committees, all of these contractors we pay that were responsible for performing the background checks. There should be a wholesale housecleaning.

SPIEGEL: Should Keith Alexander, head of the NSA, resign?

McCain: Of course, they should resign or be fired. We no longer hold anybody accountable in Washington. The Commandant of the Marine Corps fired a couple of generals because of failure of security at a base in Afghanistan. Tell me who has been fired for anything that's gone bad in this town.

Notice that it's not because of the spying that Alexander should be fired... but rather because people like Manning and Snowden were able to leak documents.

And, yes, elsewhere in the interview, McCain does complain about the extent of the NSA's spying... but not on ordinary Americans. No, the only thing that seems to upset him about it is when it impacts our relationships with "friends" in foreign governments. Look at this key quote:

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, how should intelligence services define the lines that must not be crossed?

McCain: The limit should be the potential damage to relations with that country. In other words, is it worth the collateral damage that could result in those techniques being revealed? What would be the reaction of our friends to it?

Notice absolutely no mention of things like people's rights to privacy? Notice absolutely no mention of concern for citizens either in the US or elsewhere? Nope. His only concern is when the spying might "damage relations" with a friendly country. Incredible.

Elsewhere in the interview, McCain scoffs at the idea that Germany might offer Snowden asylum, saying "we're too good friends" for Germany to do such a horrible thing. He also insists that he knows Snowden revealed everything to the Russians, despite no evidence to support this. He says that if you don't believe Snowden revealed everything to the Russians, "then you believe that pigs can fly." Furthermore, he calls Snowden a "defector," which is simply factually inaccurate. Snowden was forced into the Russians' hands by the US's clumsy approach to trying to stop him.

The only thing that seems to offend McCain is (1) that we let "low level" people like Manning and Snowden have access to secrets and (2) that we might offend a few "high level" friends. It's the complaint of an ultimate insider, who only cares about friends in high places and has absolutely no concern whatsoever for the common people he hasn't been in touch with in decades.

Filed Under: angela merkel, bradley manning, chelsea manning, ed snowden, germany, john mccain, keith alexander, surveillance

Keith Alexander Sarcastically Blames Ambassadors For NSA's Foreign Spying

from the winning-friends,-left-and-right dept

It would appear that NSA boss Keith Alexander is beginning to get tired of all these questions about the NSA, and the supposed lack of support from the White House concerning the revelations of spying on foreign leaders. One of the things that is most often said about Alexander is that he can be very charming and charismatic in talking to people one on one, which has helped him in various political matters for years, but given his latest exchange, it sounds like he's beginning to crack a bit. When confronted by Maryland state senator James Rosapepe, who had been the US ambassador to Romania back in the 90s, Alexander decided to get sarcastic and blame US diplomats and the administration for having the NSA spy on foreign leaders:

"We all joke that everyone is spying on everyone," [Rosapepe] said. "But that is not a national security justification."

Alexander replied: "That is a great question, in fact as an ambassador you have part of the answer. Because we the intelligence agencies don't come up with the requirements. The policymakers come up with the requirements."

He went on: "One of those groups would have been, let me think, hold on, oh: ambassadors."

Of course, even if this is true, it's a fairly incredible statement, where the head of the NSA now seems to think it's appropriate to go sarcastic over such a question. It may be true that the NSA is "just following orders," but that hardly excuses the behavior, nor the near constant stream of misleading to outright false statements spread by the NSA, even while it searches for every loophole it can find to expand its spying efforts.

Filed Under: james rosapepe, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance

The Best Comments From The Worst Video: The Internet Vs. The NSA's Charm Offensive

from the patented-internet-'Preparation-H8'-does-nothing-for-agency-asshurt dept

The NSA continues to battle for hearts and minds, mostly aiming for those that matter (elected officials), but occasionally stepping down to street level to tell everyday Americans how they've got the spy agency all wrong.

To that end, the Dept. of Defense produced an incredibly awkward video featuring Captain James Tiberius Kirk General Keith Alexander answering a series of questions from a supposed interviewer (although her voice is never actually heard). It's all shot in a "look how open we are!" sort of way, which means seeing glimpses of the recording crew, extension cords, the back of the "interviewer's" head and, most surprisingly, Alexander without a tie.

In a thirty-minute version of the Official Talking Points, Alexander talks about how spy people are the best people and compares the Section 215 program to being forced to take a bath. He invites a discussion on how to better surveil the world while also recommending journalists publishing leaked documents be "stopped." Sadly, he doesn't invite too much discussion on this topic, although he does use the royal "we" when detailing who should be preventing journalists from performing journalism.

"We ought to come up with a way of stopping it. I don't know how to do that. That's more of the courts and the policymakers but, from my perspective, it's wrong to allow this to go on."

The strained informality of the video isn't fooling anyone. Currently, it sports a gaudy "dislike" ratio of 57:1 (280 "likes," 15,381 "dislikes").


There are also more than 4,000 comments on the video, almost every single one of them disparaging. The comments range to-the-point "screw the NSA" variations to longer, unhinged spiels tying the NSA leaks to the commenter's pet conspiracy theory. One commenter was moved to give the NSA frontman both barrels of his (presumably British) derision.


Between the expected flow of vitriol (mostly deserved), all-caps screeds/Illuminati rantings (because this is the internet) and ways to earn money at home, there are a few hidden gems.


That faux-openness? Fooling nobody. But it's amazing what a single unbuttoned button does for someone's public persona. Sure, you might feel you could have a drink with the Chief Spook, but I imagine you'd take your wallet, phone or purse to the restroom with you when nature called.

Another commenter feels the removal of the necktie doesn't go quite far enough towards making General Alexander a man of the people.


And the music (ffs!). Motherboard calls the video out for its pseudo-NOVA episode feel, asking simply "Why?" in its one word critique of the soundtrack. Alphaville refers to the music as "narco-ambient." A (misspelled?) Alex Vance gives credit where credit is due, however.


But maybe there's more to the music than simply being the first track off the first library music album grabbed by the DoD's producers.


Beyond critiquing the video's look and soundtrack, some commenters offered their impressions of Alexander himself...


as well as Alexander's preferred nickname…


and the sort of reaction the queasy music and queasier talking points recitation has on the average viewer.


I, for one, am looking forward to more awkward openness from intelligence officials in the coming months. The power of social media should be harnessed by the NSA and others (but from the outside, like the rest of us), if for no other reason than it provides immediate feedback on the credibility of the talking points. Sure, the NSA may learn nothing from this experience, but if it thought the country was fairly evenly split on the merits of intrusive surveillance, it can look to its 57:1 dislike ratio for further guidance. Even Texas Governor Rick Perry's atrocious presidential campaign video only sports a dislike ratio of 29:1, and that video criticizes gays in the military and complains about the separation of church and state.

Perhaps the next video could be Clapper, Comey, Alexander, Michael Hayden and Stewart Baker "casually" discussing the merits of broad surveillance programs while playing poker, sitting on lawn furniture, taking a nature hike or closing a field office. Maybe some "citizens" could be on tap to ask "natural-sounding" softballs about how 9/11 was caused by civil liberties groups or how basement-dwelling losers shouldn't expect to be allowed into "adult" discussions on intelligence policies -- you know, whatever it takes to turn public opinion around.

Filed Under: dod, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance, propaganda, youtube