5 Years of Data Not Collected by NSA

Just days after General Keith Alexander successfully dodged questions about the NSA’s massive new data storage facility by disclaiming any responsibility for collecting US person data, the National Counterterrorism Center is preparing to extend how long they can retain US person data to 5 years.

The Justice Department is close to approving guidelines that would allow the intelligence community to lengthen the period of time it retains information about U.S. residents, even if they have no known connection to terrorism.

Senior U.S. officials familiar with the guidelines said the changes would allow the National Counterterrorism Center, the intelligence community’s clearinghouse for counterterrorism data, to keep such information for up to five years.

Currently, the center must promptly destroy any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism is evident.

I guess if you’ve got all that data storage space in UT, you’re going to need something to fill it with.

To justify this power grab, the WaPo’s sources point to two attacks that had nothing to do with the length of data retention: the Nidal Hasan attack, in which information on his conversations with Anwar al-Awlaki hadn’t been shared throughout the government, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in which his suspect status hadn’t been loaded into the no-fly list.

They don’t, however, point to a concrete example where 5 year old data of US persons might have helped solve an actual terror attack.

But thanks to this measure pushed through in almost complete secrecy, when they declare–say–your Church a terrorist organization in three year’s time, they’ll have records of your association with it in a database in UT.

Update: Here’s Charlie Savage on this. Here’s the new guidelines. And here’s the guidelines they replaced. I’ll come back to these later.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

18 Responses to 5 Years of Data Not Collected by NSA

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @erinscafe The furry picture should lead all reports though.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 @TheBradBlog Ooof. Hope you have enough coffee and/or bourbon.
5mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 @TheBradBlog Sure. But that is exactly why the patina of "legality" is so illusory in this discussion.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 @TheBradBlog And that applies to torture, extrajudicial killing, banksters, illegal surveillance, and a whole host of issues.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 @TheBradBlog The problem, as with so much is the political acts that beget such use/nonuse of discretion.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 @TheBradBlog Right. Failure to prosecute/hold accountable for Senate incursion is technically legal as prosecutorial discretion.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @WSJ: At 79, Jerry Lee Lewis just released his 41st studio album. Listen here: http://t.co/rAJMtCwvpX http://t.co/IVJYFJ10VM
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @AntonioFrench: Bob McCulloch and Attorney General Holder should be launching investigations into who is leaking this info. Police? Atto…
38mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @mtracey @billmon1 As SSCI Chair, it was her duty to make the case, and she did, lack of vocal support from others, and non-SSCI depressing
49mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 Even assuming you get past that as to DOD action, which is dubious, there is still issue of §1117+§1119 liability for civilians
54mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @billmon1 I agree as to seriousness. But disagree that characterization as combatants is legally correct without a battlefield+imminence.
57mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @shenebraskan @billmon1 Yeah, sorry about that. But even in a constant sea of depressing, certain things just stand out.
1hreplyretweetfavorite