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 Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

  • 1
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @KagroX @Cam_RollCall @nielslesniewski Nice Deflategate tie in!
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @trevortimm Actually, if she believes that, she has an ethical obligation to do so. Not that ethics are anything but situational at DOJ.
12mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @lavenderblue27: Police Union Official Wearing ‘I Am Darren Wilson’ Wristband Starts Brawl At St. http://t.co/DkWtjFxXBK via @sharethis
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @trevortimm: Since Loretta Lynch says waterboarding is torture & "illegal," the first thing she can do as AG is prosecute the CIA. http:…
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Cops are congenital liars RT @AP Sheriffs' group complains feature in Waze traffic app endangers officers http://t.co/zwAUzn25aO
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Congrats to @lpackard for the recognition for her work for @DebDingell. http://t.co/l9mQakyHYa
21mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz .@johnson_carrie So this Sheriff Clark is pretty much a police state shit show.
24mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @johnson_carrie @JonathanTurley But she won't. In fact Lynch is likely far more of an Exec Branch authoritarian than Holder.
26mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Judge Rakoff, one of most independent judges, quits committee assessing DOJ just trying to retain unfair advantages. http://t.co/auGC2nEj0L
52mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @rebowers Seems as good an explanation as any.
53mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Can rats drown and then come back to life? Five times? Asking for a friend. http://t.co/FbvNNB96FY
57mreplyretweetfavorite