NSA’s Inspector General Appears to Be Disappearing 299 Deliberate Violations a Year

Bloomberg is getting a lot of attention for reporting the results of a still-classified (and unleaked) NSA Inspector General audit showing that NSA averages one rule violation a year.

Some National Security Agency analysts deliberately ignored restrictions on their authority to spy on Americans multiple times in the past decade, contradicting Obama administration officials’ and lawmakers’ statements that no willful violations occurred.

[snip]

The incidents, chronicled in a new report by the NSA’s inspector general, provide more evidence that U.S. agencies sometimes have violated legal and administrative restrictions on domestic spying, and may add to the pressure to bolster laws that govern intelligence activities.

The inspector general documented an average of one case per year over 10 years of intentionally inappropriate actions by people with access to the NSA’s vast electronic surveillance systems, according to an official familiar with the findings. The incidents were minor, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified intelligence. [my emphasis]

Now, perhaps the IG is using the rule laid out by Barton Gellman saying that intentionally inappropriate action that serves “the mission” isn’t an intentionally inappropriate action.

If they are performing the mission that the NSA wants them to perform, and nevertheless overstep their legal authority, make unauthorized interceptions or searches or retentions or sharing of secret information, that is not abuse, that’s a mistake.

But this seems to be another example of NSA’s funny math.

Because the NSA’s own internal count of such violations suggests there would be closer to 300 such violations a year (counting just those deemed a lack of due diligence). The 772 violations for the S2 Directorate in the first quarter of 2011 represented 89% of all NSA’s violations that quarter; if their 68 due diligence violations represented 89% of all due diligence violations (S2′s rate for due diligence violations is lower than the two other categories broken out), you’d expect 76 each quarter, or just over 300 a year.

So whereas the NSA is telling itself that there are 300 examples a year where someone doesn’t follow rules — not because they don’t know them (those are training violations) or because they make a data entry error (those are human error), but something else — it is telling Congress there is just one example a year.

Poof! Magic math.

Update: If Kimberly Dozier got it too, it’s an official leak.

They apparently don’t fire people who use all these spy tools to spy on their exes.

Two U.S. officials said one analyst was disciplined in years past for using NSA resources to track a former spouse. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

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

17 Responses to NSA’s Inspector General Appears to Be Disappearing 299 Deliberate Violations a Year

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @walterwkatz @gideonstrumpet @ScottGreenfield @LilianaSegura @roomfordebate Yes, that was a nice little touch, no? Jeebus.
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @LegallyErin: There's something very sexy about Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal. I always date the worst guys.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @imraansiddiqi You seemed like such a respectable chap, and now here you are talking about Kardashians. #Shame
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @cody_k I went as a Pando journalist blowing shit out of my ass about Greenwald.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dcbigjohn @erinscafe In or out of the furry costume?
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @AntheaButler: Hands up, don't shoot. RT @deray: Superhero protest. #Ferguson http://t.co/ejnhDLq7jv
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JoshuaADouglas @rickhasen @chrislhayes And I ask because that was why I blew off the injunction+contemplated whether were provable damages.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JoshuaADouglas @rickhasen @chrislhayes Question since you are in state there, is hearing even possible before the injunction would be moot?
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JoshuaADouglas @rickhasen @chrislhayes Exactly. But with the defenses, hard to see an injunction burden being met.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JoshuaADouglas @rickhasen @chrislhayes Not to mention the actual public figure blah blah blah that will lead the defense. Meh.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JoshuaADouglas @rickhasen @chrislhayes I think that's debatable, but assuming so, what are provable damages in an election context?
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz The Guantánamo Tapes http://t.co/r6JfRJl7r4 Yes, of course force feeding tapes depict torture, why you think govt fights to keep classified?
3hreplyretweetfavorite