More Contractor Problems — And FISC Disclosure Problems?

In the updated minimization procedures approved in 2011, the NSA added language making clear that the procedures applied to everyone doing analysis for NSA.

For the purposes of these procedures, the terms “National Security Agency” and “NSA personnel” refer to any employees of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service (“NSA/CSS” or “NSA”) and any other personnel engaged in Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) operations authorized pursuant to section 702 of the Act if such operations are executed under the direction, authority, or control of the Director, NSA/Chief, CSS (DIRNSA).

It told the FISA Court it needed this language to make it clear that militarily-deployed NSA personnel also had to abide by them.

The government has added language to Section 1 to make explicit that the procedures apply not only to NSA employees, but also to any other persons engaged in Section 702-related activities that are conducted under the direction, authority or control of the Director of the NSA. NSA Minimization Procedures at 1. According to the government, this new language is intended to clarify that Central Security Service personnel conducting signals intelligence operations authorized by Section 702 are bound by the procedures, even when they are deployed with a military unit and subject to the military chain of command.

But to me both these passages rang alarms about contractors. Did they have to include this language, I wondered, because contractors in the past had claimed not to be bound by the same rules NSA’s direct employees were?

Lo and behold the Bloomberg piece reporting that NSA’s IG undercounts deliberate violations by roughly 299 a year includes this:

The actions, said a second U.S. official briefed on them, were the work of overzealous NSA employees or contractors eager to prevent any encore to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It sure seems that at least some of the worst violations — the ones even NSA’s IG will call intentional — were committed by contractors. Which suggests I may be right about the inclusion of that language to make it clear it applies to contractors.

If that’s the case, then why did NSA tell the FISA Court this new language was about militarily-deployed NSA employees, and not about contractors?

 

Tweet about this on Twitter7Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook2Google+0Email to someone

One Response to More Contractor Problems — And FISC Disclosure Problems?

  • 1

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @WesleyLowery @SariHorwitz In fairness, nobody who actually understands CRD jurisdiction ever thought there would be charges.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @the_intercept @ggreenwald You should put a link to the media petition in that post.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @iMusing: Fuck this shit: Boys get chemistry, engineering & astronomy. Girls get science with a sparkle http://t.co/8Bd1aKcO0b Via @abso
43mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RKTlaw I have I think, but can't remember where.
51mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Javakev Welp, gonna be hard, he is running unopposed.
54mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Javakev Far as I can tell, he was last reelected in 2010 and is up for reelection right now.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz No ordinary grand jury is EVER conducted the way McCulloch is conducting the #MikeBrown grand jury. Never.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Bob McCulloch's biased+conflicted antics in handling #MikeBrown grand jury are an embarrassment to justice system. People should be outraged
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz But when it comes to fairness and justice for the actual victim, #MikeBrown, Bob McCulloch is apparently willing to do nothing.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz So, Bob McCulloch will do EVERYTHING imaginable to give "fairness" to Darren Wilson, things he admits even he has NEVER done before.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz With a larger grand jury panel, eliminating one juror would not create nearly the damage to credibility it will for #MikeBrown GJ grand jury
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz By eliminating a grand juror, only 11 would be left and the percentage necessary to indict goes up from 75% to 82%. McClloch prob likes that
1hreplyretweetfavorite