NSA Waited Until Christmas Eve To Release Details Of Its Illegal Surveillance On Americans
from the merry-christmas-everyone! dept
One of the recurring storylines from NSA defenders is that there’s been “no abuse” of the surveillance programs. Except, that’s not true. Leaked and released documents have shown thousands of examples of abuse including failed audits and minimal accountability. In fact, in many of the cases where abuse was found, it was only discovered thanks to employees confessing about abusing the systems years later — meaning that it’s quite likely that there are many more cases of abuse that the NSA itself doesn’t even know about.
The ACLU has been seeking detailed reporting from the NSA on its abuses, filing a lawsuit against the agency for its failures to fully respond to a FOIA request. The NSA — which has a habit of releasing important documents late on Friday evenings before a weekend — took things one step further this time, waiting until Christmas Eve to dump a whole load of files detailing the NSA’s abuse of surveillance practices. Some of the abuses appear rather egregious:
In a 2012 case, for example, an NSA analyst ?searched her spouse?s personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting,? according to one report. The analyst ?has been advised to cease her activities,? it said.
Of course, beyond this being a rather blatant form of abuse, it seems noteworthy that this particular example was not included in the report that the NSA gave Congress in 2013 supposedly highlighting all of the examples of abuse. In fact, as you read through these reports, it appears that abuse and “mistakes” were fairly widespread. Here’s opening one of the many reports at random and showing just a snippet of the listings:
Filed Under: abuse, christmas eve, nsa, surveillance
Comments on “NSA Waited Until Christmas Eve To Release Details Of Its Illegal Surveillance On Americans”
it really says how badly the NSA wants to avoid discussing all these abuses that it timed the release of these documents on Christmas Eve
Next: the documents will be available in a computer in the Antarctic continent with only a 5″1/4 drive for those who want to copy them. Maybe stone tablets following. I mean, Christmas Eve is probably the worst they can do without actively hindering the access, no?
Re: Re:
with only a 5″1/4 drive for those who want to copy them
Copying is THEFT! They can’t allow that!
Re: Re:
How about a good Friday release?
Re: Re:
5 1/4″ disks? How modern! I would have expected punched cards.
Re: Re: Re:
I wasn’t born at the time 🙁
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for making me feel ancient. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’m getting there. 5 1/4 would be considered alien by most teens nowadays heh.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Heh. I still have working 8″ floppy drives that I use!
Re: Re:
Next: the documents will be available in a computer in the Antarctic continent with only a 5″1/4 drive for those who want to copy them.
You can all just pretend I pasted the Douglas Adams passage here. 😉
Re: Re: Re:
Well said.
Re: Re: Re:
You can all just pretend I pasted the Douglas Adams passage here. 😉
At least there’s no leopards in Antarctica 🙂
Re: Re:
for 5 minutes, after which it will self destruct
Re: Re:
In the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, haven’t noticed the nasch’es post above 🙁
“searched her spouse’s personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting,”
I’m pretty sure this is not evidence of abuse. This is evidence that she was married to a potential terrorist and the NSA immediately took action. Job well done.
Good Play!
If its old news we Americans don’t care! Our memory spans are practically non-existent!
Obama proved that you can get ANYTHING by us American idiots! All you have to do is keep doing it rapidly and sequentially then you can catch them off guard easily.
Take a note republicans… Obama has shown you the way… the Dems did not reel their guy in, now its time for you Reps to do the same to them. Let the frenzy begin and be sure to rip America apart by ensuring that the Constitution, the Laws, and the Will of the People are shat upon without delay! Give’m what for!
This will fulfill the veritable prophecy left behind by President George Washington in his farewell address.
Re: Good Play!
Bush proved that you can get ANYTHING by us American idiots! All you have to do is keep doing it rapidly and sequentially then you can catch them off guard easily.
Take a note democrats… Bush showed you the way… the Repugs did not reel their guy in, now its time for you Dems to do the same to them. Let the frenzy begin and be sure to rip America apart by ensuring that the Constitution, the Laws, and the Will of the People are shat upon without delay! Give’m what for!
Corrected
No need to thank me, boy.
Re: Re: Good Play!
Thank you ma’am…
Side question? What makes you think I care anything for Bush just because I was attacking Obama?
Feeling defensive? I do admit that I have less respect for Obama than I do Bush, but if you bothered to really read my post then you would know that I do not like either of the two parties. I voted for neither of these assclowns!
You are a part of the problem with this country… Your “Obama” gets attacked and you feel offended instead of realizing that Obama = Bush? If you hated Bush, how in the hell can you even tolerate Obama? Obama is just another Bush with ALL of Bushes negative attributes amplified.
O yea, I keep forgetting… for people like you it only matters if there is a D or R next to that name if something is okay or not… carry on sheep person! carry on!
Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
“What makes you think I care anything for Bush just because I was attacking Obama?”
Nothing, but I think the point is that your attack on Obama was incorrect. He didn’t “show the way”. He is just following in the same time-honored tradition that all presidents have followed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Good Play!
If you think the attack on Obama was incorrect then there is no help for you either.
Using the lens of history to absolve Obama makes it clear you lack intellectual honesty. While there are always opinions when it comes to how one believes each President has done in their job there are some other very real facts. And Obama has, by the numbers alone, surpassed Bush’s corruption quite effectively.
But I digress you Obama lovers just try to turn these things into a Bush vs Obama when these guys are cut from the same cloth. Bush finished the Terrorists work with America by creating DHS and the Patriot Act… Obama is using all of that power and then some.
Until we can find some way to educate idiots like you, we will never unshackle ourselves from the chains of the party system and the wars that plague mankind. You are so stuck on defending your very corrupt side until the bitter end that the only recourse will be to take lives to put a stop to it. This is never the way to go, but eventually someone that thinks just the way you do about things, but on the other side will come along and will begin the war all over again.
I will just sit back and watch you idiots destroy yourselves once again… not even with the wealth of history available you have yet to learn anything. Your kind apparently approves of “the ends justifying the means.”
Re: Re: Re:3 Good Play!
“Using the lens of history to absolve Obama”
I wasn’t absolving anyone. Perhaps you should try to understand what I said before calling me intellectually dishonest.
“you Obama lovers”
That’s fantastically funny. I am not an “Obama lover”. That you think that I am merely displays your own distorted, bipolar, world view.
I think that you should read the rest of the comment you wrote there and think very carefully about it — you could stand to learn something from your own words.
Re: Re: Re:4 Good Play!
If you are not an Obama lover then I am happy to take that comment back, but when people defend the likes of Obama with the past actions of a lesser evil like Bush, then it makes it a mighty difficult pill to swallow. Obama is a greater evil than Bush, even though in some ways not by much. Obama has lied more, disrespected the people and the soldier more, and has supported every despicable policy Bush put into place despite his past remarks against them. Obama is a much truer version of a silver tongued devil than Bush ever was. Bush would be more of an oafish evil person, while Obama is a deceitfully evil one.
If you consider my view to be bipolar then I cannot help you. Yes I know exactly what my words mean for I formed them myself with a great deal of introspection and observation. I harbor no fantasy that I am the wisest on the planet but do easily recognize the foolishness of most. I know very well how these things will end, and yet, despite reviewing history I do still try to sway the minds of the foolish and ignorant to no avail.
Humanity will never resist it own iniquity, we will forever sit among ourselves and reason away sanity and create law and injustice to fit our machinations in the name of some perverse ideal. We follow our leaders to our own doom, this is why we reap what we sow. We all suffer at the hands of our governments because we foolishly believed them to be honest and well intending with society. Defend the corrupt at your own peril, they will ensure that you are “repaid” for it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Good Play!
when people defend the likes of Obama with the past actions of a lesser evil like Bush, then it makes it a mighty difficult pill to swallow.
You’re still misunderstanding. Your original comment said, in effect, Obama started this. The replies were “no, other presidents did it before him.” That isn’t defending Obama.
If you consider my view to be bipolar then I cannot help you.
You seem to think that anyone disagreeing with you is in favor of Obama. That would be a non sequitur, and would reflect a fallacious view of the world that puts everyone into one of two categories.
Re: Re: Re:6 Good Play!
Wait… the post did not claim that Obama started it, it said he has shown you the way. Sure you can try to construe this to imply a start but does not mean that was the angle the original poster was going for.
The poster also did not imply that anyone that disagreed was in favor of Obama… what seems to be implied that “defending” Obama made them in favor of him. If you defend someones negative actions… well how can you NOT be in favor of them?
Not sure if you did all that to twist the debate but its important to clarify, perhaps the original poster should have done a better job at this but reading into things like this always leads to misunderstanding, it happens, but best to avoid when possible.
Re: Re: Re:7 Good Play!
Wait… the post did not claim that Obama started it, it said he has shown you the way. Sure you can try to construe this to imply a start but does not mean that was the angle the original poster was going for.
Perhaps that isn’t what he meant but that is what it sounds like to me, especially since after it was interpreted that way he didn’t say anything to the effect of “I didn’t mean Obama started it”.
The poster also did not imply that anyone that disagreed was in favor of Obama… what seems to be implied that “defending” Obama made them in favor of him. If you defend someones negative actions… well how can you NOT be in favor of them?
You’re making the same mistake he did. Nobody has defended Obama’s actions. Pointing out that Obama was not the first to do it IS NOT defending Obama, or his actions. I can make a Nazi analogy if you like… but sometimes those don’t help. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:7 Good Play!
“the post did not claim that Obama started it, it said he has shown you the way.”
The phrase “shown you the way” pretty much means “started it.”
Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
could’nt agree with you more on the divide and conquer like tactics…….both the intentional and non intentional ignorant variety
Re: Re: Good Play!
Truman proved that you can get ANYTHING by us American idiots! All you have to do is keep doing it rapidly and sequentially then you can catch them off guard easily.
Take a note democrats… Truman showed you the way… the Dems did not reel their guy in, now its time for you Reps to do the same to them. Let the frenzy begin and be sure to rip America apart by ensuring that the Constitution, the Laws, and the Will of the People are shat upon without delay! Give’m what for!
Corrected
No need to thank me, child.
Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
Yea, My diatribe can be easily used for either party you need to use it for.
That is why I brought up George Washington. He pretty much said this type of back and forth bullshit would happen if we keep going down the party system road. Boy was he right.
Neither party will purge their corrupt members and the citizens just keep voting down the party line regardless of what happens becoming polarized every time someone says something trashy about “their guy”. We have been voting R or D repeatedly, for quite some time, while expecting different results. Someone said that this was the definition of insanity.
Re: Re: Re: Good Play!
Truman was a Democrat. Not that it matters much, both parties are different from what they were then.
Why Christmas Eve
The NSA had been trying to game its spot on Santa’s naughty/nice lists so it had to wait until he finalized the list for delivery.
Now why he’s using a paper list is beyond me.
Re: Why Christmas Eve
Because it’s harder for them to intercept and ‘modify’ the paper list.
good play
I’m guessing then, you did not vote. So shut up about that part. Only voters should be able to comment on the elected. That’s a carry over from the american revolution that happens every 2/4/6 years.
Re: good play
Goody Goody… then I don’t have to pay TAXES because i didn’t VOTE for them…. whew!
And for anyone who bother to look into the issues, both the (R)etards and the (D)umb-asses are only in it for themselves.
/George Washington was right. ‘Political Parties’ are evil.
Re: good play
This is so very naive.
Whether someone voted or not, or whom they voted for is essentially immaterial to this. They have every right to comment on things that impact their lives. Your type of thinking is what is destroying the nation, you simply unable to understand why.
Re: good play
“Only voters should be able to comment on the elected.”
Well, if we’re going to go with that argument, then let’s go all the way. Voting is necessary but woefully insufficient, so if all you’re doing is voting, then you have no more right to comment than nonvoters.
Re: Re: good play
Something I agree with you on, we might think more alike that you might appreciate.
Hmmm…
Re: Re: Re: good play
Just to be clear, I don’t actually agree that non-voters (or only-voters)have no right to comment. Talking about (and complaining about) the government is the most important thing a citizen can do. Even more important than voting. It is every citizen’s responsibility to discuss these issues, whether they vote or not.
I agree with Mark Twain: “The citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth’s political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal, he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay, does not excuse him: it is his duty to agitate anyway, and it is the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does.”
Re: Re: good play
I disagree with you on this Jon. Nonvoters can comment on the same topics as voters (whether informed or the ignorant ones). While voting is a great concept, the current iteration and recent history has shown its shortcomings. Those who exercise their right in not participating through non voting can be informed citizens.
Re: Re: Re: good play
I agree. I was being a bit sarcastic.
Re: good play
Not far enough, people should only be allowed to comment on the elected and what they do if the people they voted for won.
After all, elections are infallible measures of the will of the people and what they want done, so if your guy/gal didn’t win, then obviously the people disagree with your stance and views, and you should have no say in how things are done!
Re: good play
Not sure if sarcasm
But if only voters have a say to comment on the elected, then the elected should only dictate over those who voted them
At this point, I rather suspect that what they mean by “no (evidence of) abuse” is that there’s no evidence that the NSA itself has been abusing its authority under these programs, rather than that individual analysts have been (ab)using their access in ways which fall outside of their duties.
I.e., if an NSA agent were ordered to do something which was an abuse of one of these programs, that would qualify as the NSA abusing its authority – but if an NSA agent with access under these programs just does something inappropriate with that access, on his or her own, that’s not the NSA committing the abuse. It’s an “institutional” vs. “individual” thing.
That’s twisting definitions of words a bit, but much less than what the NSA has already done in other areas to justify these programs in the first place, and it would not in the least surprise me if they were intentionally using that narrower definition to be able to claim no abuse and have it be technically accurate.
Re: Re:
I’m sure that you’re right, that’s how they want to frame the situation. But it’s complete bullshit. In the end, any bad thing that any organization does comes down to someone approving it — so in the end, the organization itself (being a nonsentient, manmade fictional entity) can never do anything wrong at all. It’s always some person or people within it, after all.
Re: Re: Re:
There’s room for discussion of nuance there, but my point was that if we want to refute them on this counterargument, we need to either come up with evidence that there is abuse of this narrow type which they’re actually denying, or start pointing out explicitly that they’re denying something other than what they’re being accused of (and thereby not addressing the accusations).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
start pointing out explicitly that they’re denying something other than what they’re being accused of (and thereby not addressing the accusations).
They always do that. Every denial from the NSA is very carefully worded to deny something other than what the question actually asks about.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And the only way to address that is to point it out, every time, and point out the distinctions between the question they answered and the question which was actually asked – thus, at least in some sense, putting the ball back in their court.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And the only way to address that is to point it out, every time, and point out the distinctions between the question they answered and the question which was actually asked – thus, at least in some sense, putting the ball back in their court.
I completely agree.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“When asked whether or not you are doing A, you assured us that you are not doing B. While nice, that’s not what was asked, so if you could, answer the question: Are you doing A?“
Nice idea, but the news agencies these days are too spineless to actually follow through. They might lose out on some ‘exclusives’ after all, can’t have that.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Nice idea, but the news agencies these days are too spineless to actually follow through.
It’s amazing to listen to some British reporters. They’re like bulldogs compared to Americans. It’s somewhere between disappointing and infuriating to see a reporter just let a politician off the hook if he’s determined enough to dodge the question twice. It’s like they think it’s more important to get through all the questions than to actually get answers to some of them.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And that is why the ‘news’ in the US is completely useless at keeping politicians in check, because any half-way intelligent politician knows that if they dodge a question once or twice the one asking will just move on to the next, rather than refuse to move on and spend an entire show trying to get the politician to answer.
It’s exactly like you say, they prioritize making it through the list of questions, even if that means ignoring the ones that aren’t answered, over actually having the questions answered, and everyone knows it.
Where they should be confrontational, asking questions and demanding answers, and being the ones in charge of the interview, instead, more often than not, they just let the politician run the show, lobbing a few weak questions, and completely ignoring it if those questions are brushed aside and dodged.
So Dirty Laundry Friday fell on a Wednesday last week.
Our new reality?
An unredacted NSA report covering a recent Five Eyes long term planning session was found copied to Dick Cheney’s upstairs toilet paper roll, followed by a translation of the US Constitution into Klingon (with surprisingly few spelling errors), while he was in an out-patient luxury suite above the local Hooters holding a sawed off shotgun on the surgeon replacing his pacemaker. The complete text of the sessions executive summary (beginning after the extremely popular morning mushroom break) follows:
Thus goes our best intelligence agencies thinking…at their best.
Re: Our new reality?
best comment ever, i tried sharing it with friends but my tablet won’t allow me to
Did she have access to “her spouse’s personal telephone directory” through the NSA?
Re: Re:
I was wondering this myself. The only way that situation makes any sense is if we’re talking about an online directory, such as Google contacts. Perhaps he was actually letting his phone sync its contact list to the cloud.
It is the stance of the NSA that it committed no fault. You can be assured that is true because they have oversight. Next up we will be hearing about how they’ve successfully put a unicorn horn on display because they never ever lie. /s
That’s only because it was MEANT to be a Christmas gift…
"Cease her activities" is the response??
I believe there was an accountability failing here. “Stop that” is appropriate advice when you catch someone fantasizing about abusing their access. “You’re fired” is the appropriate first level step when you catch them actually abusing their access.
Firdays and holidays
Don’t forget that the mainstream media outlets participate in the charade by not reporting the Friday or holiday dumps.
Re: er...FRIDAYS
I noticed most of the reports state it was later realized that selectors (phone numbers, International mobile subscriber identity, etc) were those of American citizens. At which point the NSA realized they were breaking the law and ceased unlawfully seizing and searching those selectors.
My question is, at this point does the NSA forward those selectors to GCHQ so that they can continue seizing and searching American selector information from outside the country?
Their way of thinking...
NSA guy: Sir, we just discovered major abuse within the NSA. We should discover who has done this and punish them severely to prove that we are dealing with this problem.
NSA boss: What!? Are you out of your mind? We will tell our employees that they can’t do that… unless they can do it without getting caught. Then we will just make sure it becomes legal.
Or not… it is not like anyone is going to, or could, punish us anyway.
Snowden explains how they spy on you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbps1EwAW-0
Well that explains the carols the other night.
There’s something bad we have to tell you
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
But only because of the ACLU
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
While we read your communication
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
We haven’t stuck to legislation
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Murry Christmas Merikka.
NOTE… In the 4th bullet of the embedded image/report it reads: “In response to a customer’s request”…
WHO is this “customer” of the NSA AND why can they ask for data from the SIGINT database?
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I’m telling you why
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
He’s making a list,
Checking it twice;
Gonna find out who’s naughty or nice.
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
With little tin horns and little toy drums
Rooty toot toots and rummy tum tums
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
Goodness sake
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I’m telling you why
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming to town
NSA is coming
NSA is coming
NSA is coming to town
(Coming to town)
NSA’s a busy man he has no time to play
He’s got millions of stockings to fill on Christmas day
(NSA is coming to town)
(Coming to town)
(NSA is coming to town)
(Coming to town)
NSA - Partial File Release
The incompleteness of the NSA Christmas file release has gone unnoticed. On Christmas Day I posted: Merry Christmas From the NSA! Missing Files detailing missing files. Then on 27 December 2014, I posted NSA IOB Report Dump – Still Missing Files on 3 files missing after the NSA corrected its first file posting (silently). As of today, 30 December 2014, the NSA as posted the three files I noted missing on 27 December 2014, again, silently. The piece-meal dribbling out of the files hasn’t attracted other commentary as far as I am aware.
Anyone performing substantive analysis of the file content? Interested in comparing methods/notes. Thanks!
Patrick