Were DiFi’s Aides Who Claimed “Only a Small Number” of Back Door Searches Ignorant or Lying?

Yesterday, we learned:

  • NSA conducted unwarranted back door searches on 198 US persons’ content last year and 9,500 back door searches on US person metadata
  • CIA conducted around 1,900 unwarranted back door searches on US person content, and an uncounted number of back door searches on US person metadata
  • FBI conducted a substantial number of unwarranted back door searches on US person content and metadata — so much so it doesn’t count it

Back in November, when Dianne Feinstein was trying to codify these unwarranted back door searches explicitly into law, here’s what anonymous sources described as Senate Intelligence Committee aides told the WaPo:

They say that there have been only a “small number” of such queries each year. Such searches are useful, for instance, if a tip arises that a terrorist group is plotting to kill or kidnap an American, officials have said.

“Only a small number.”

Over 2,000 counted searches between the CIA and NSA. Uncounted, but substantial, number of searches by FBI. “Only a small number.”

Were these anonymous sources ignorant — relying on false information from the Agencies? The actual number of unwarranted back door searches doesn’t appear in the unredacted portions of the one Semiannual Section 702 Compliance report we’ve seen (see page 13); there doesn’t appear to be a redacted section where they would end up.

So have the Agencies (CIA and NSA in this case; FBI’s back door searches get audited in a different way) simply hidden from their Congressional overseers how frequently they were doing these searches?

Or were these aides trying, once again, to pass legislation permitting the nation’s spy agencies to conduct intrusive searches on Americans by lying?

One way or another, it’s a damn good thing Ron Wyden asked for and insisted on getting an answer to his question of how common these back door searches are (even if the FBI still refuses to count them). Because the key people who are supposed to oversee them are either ignorant or lying about them.

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

11 Responses to Were DiFi’s Aides Who Claimed “Only a Small Number” of Back Door Searches Ignorant or Lying?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @LegallyErin @TyreJim To have basically 2 starting QBs in 23yrs? That is sick. Also, a song to ChiTown from Out West https://t.co/Cjmsr60zHl
bmaz @LegallyErin @TyreJim Precisely. The Packers are blessed and, occasionally, cursed by QBs they depend on. But I'll take it!
bmaz @LegallyErin @TyreJim Seriously. Injuries are a problem, but, still, it is like the mojo or something is gone. Weird.
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery You think everything that goes beyond your own point is a "red herring" Which is itself a red herring
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery But real harm comes when media misinformed public demands expanded definitions be ensconced in law.
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery And, no, not all crime sprees should be blithely termed "terrorism".
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery Naw, "media" does not. They just blow adopted militaristic cop jargon out their ass like parrots.
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery ...is dangerous to the Constitutional rights and interests of all US citizens. That fear not worth it
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery I am not totally sure what any of you mean, but expanding "terrorism" beyond what it legally means...
bmaz @Subscatter @WesleyLowery One step at a time!
bmaz Because you are sane and sober, and don't want to bandy about a critical legal definitional term recklessly? https://t.co/1tkT0XAyIH
bmaz RT @BFriedmanDC: Lots of domestic terrorism in the U.S. this week. All angry, armed white guys. https://t.co/Qv6FNemqz1
July 2014
« Jun   Aug »