NSA Non-Denial Denial 241,352,052

Here’s the best the NSA could come up with to deny the WaPo’s report about how it steals data from Google and Yahoo overseas.

NSA has multiple authorities that it uses to accomplish its mission, which is centered on defending the nation. The Washington Post’s assertion that we use Executive Order 12333 collection to get around the limitations imposed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and FAA 702 is not true.

NSA seems defensive about WaPo’s suggestion they used EO 12333 — if they did — for this collection. But note that David Kris suggests at least one other possibility for this “vacuum cleaner” collection, voluntary production (as well as procedures subordinate to EO 12333), so it’s possible they didn’t use EO 123333. Maybe the first line is meant to suggest at least one of these providers did cough this up voluntarily (which I think past reporting might support).

NSA then engages in the most delectable projection ever, in which it takes this comment from its biggest apologist this side of Michael Hayden, John Schindler, and suggests the WaPo made the assertion.

Intercepting communications overseas has clear advantages for the NSA, with looser restrictions and less oversight. NSA documents about the effort refer directly to “full take,” “bulk access” and “high volume” operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner.

Outside U.S. territory, statutory restrictions on surveillance seldom apply and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has no jurisdiction. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein has acknowledged that Congress conducts little oversight of intelligence-gathering under the presidential authority of Executive Order 12333 , which defines the basic powers and responsibilities of the intelligence agencies.

John Schindler, a former NSA chief analyst and frequent defender who teaches at the Naval War College, said it was obvious why the agency would prefer to avoid restrictions where it can.

“Look, NSA has platoons of lawyers and their entire job is figuring out how to stay within the law and maximize collection by exploiting every loophole,” he said. “It’s fair to say the rules are less restrictive under Executive Order 12333 than they are under FISA.” [my emphasis]

The WaPo didn’t make the assertion, NSA’s most loyal voice on Twitter did.

But let’s at least entertain the possibility they’re using another authority to get around FISA, or using 12333 to get around some other limitation (possibly just FISC limits, perhaps placed on a bulk record order — the old Internet dragnet no longer conducted under FISC — rather than a FISA one).

They do a similar, though craftier thing, here.

The assertion that we collect vast quantities of U.S. persons’ data from this type of collection is also not true.

The WaPo specifically said it did not know how many Americans’ data this collection was picking up.

It is not clear how much data from Americans is collected, and how much of that is retained.

By claiming the WaPo had said they collected vast quantities, NSA could deny that rather than deny they were knowingly collecting USP data. Which I take as confirmation they know they’re collecting USP data.

But who knows how much?!?! Certainly not the NSA — at least per their claims to John Bates and Ron Wyden. They don’t know how many Americans’ data is collected in this way, purportedly. So they can’t make this claim.

Not credibly, anyway.

Now we get to minimization.

NSA applies Attorney General-approved processes to protect the privacy of U.S. persons — minimizing the likelihood of their information in our targeting, collection, processing, exploitation, retention and dissemination.

Keep in mind, if your defense is minimization procedures, you’ve already conceded that 1) you are collecting US person data 2) there are a slew of circumstances in which you are keeping and circulating US person data. What NSA doesn’t say is that even the more stringent FAA minimization procedures were deemed too permissive for intentional upstream collection in the US. Since NSA has all but admitted they do collect US person data, they’ve admitted it’s intentional. Which would seem to mean that the weaker 12333 minimization procedures may not meet Fourth Amendment muster, per the John Bates opinion.

Also one more thing: those words, targeting, collection, processing, retention, and dissemination? I’ve seen all those words. But now we’re talking about “exploiting” data. I find that … troubling.

Which brings us to the familiar refrain, in which collection the NSA admits includes US person collection is redefined as “foreign” which makes all us white people okay with it unless we’re hackers or some other enemies within.

NSA is a foreign intelligence agency. And we’re focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets only.

Of course, this refrain doesn’t work anymore, given that we know that discovering and developing intelligence about foreign intelligence also involves collecting the phone records of each and every one of us. But I guess it’s stuck in NSA’s boilerplate until it becomes embarrassingly obvious to all that “foreign” no longer necessarily has much to do with “other countries.”

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+2Email to someone

22 Responses to NSA Non-Denial Denial 241,352,052

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @KellyFlood3 I have come to accept that my dog will be more important in internet life, despite a decade or more, than I will. Oh well!
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @jilliancyork Woof!! Yikes is missed http://t.co/ujHOwJ0EQs
3hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Three Americans Are Killed in a Shooting at Kabul Airport , via @nytimes http://t.co/5CLD6I2i50
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel A sterling, though not quite gold, point you make.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @LeslieMolony Yeah. Pretty sure that was yesterday's rat that she let age a while.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ColMorrisDavis: @bmaz I agree.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Sunshine2015K: @bmaz Recall Petition filed against Snohomish County Prosecutor 4 misappropriation of public funds; residents fed up w/c…
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz If there is a dumber show about law on popular TV than "How to Get Away With Murder", it is hard to imagine what it could possibly be.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @HinaShamsi In retrospect, writing GWOT Finding to permit CIA to do whatever they want w/detainees, including torture might not @Krhawkins5
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @bmaz Well, he'll be sure to use those same steak secrets against me if he ever tries to prosecute. There's precedent, you know.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @MikeScarcella: Chicago prosecutors drop drug conspiracy charges against more than two dozen defendants in ATF stash-house stings http:/…
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel There is no accounting for taste. Anywhoo, you cannot inquire into "steak secrets" according to my friend the Clap.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
October 2013
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031