Further Details On The Foreign Spying The NSA Is/Isn't/Is Doing And How Much The Administration Knows/Doesn't Know/Knows

from the rhetoric-fight! dept

In only a handful of days, the usual leak-and-denial progression of the Snowden leaks has completely disintegrated. The pattern was comforting in its own way, but the battle lines are now in a state of flux.

More allegations about overseas spying surfaced. James Clapper issued a non-denial denial about the harvesting of phone data in France that attacked a claim no one was making ("recorded phone data?"). This was swiftly followed by identical claims involving phone data from Spain and Italy. More phone data, more NSA surveillance.

The bombshell, however, was the news that German Chancellor Merkel's phone had been tapped by the NSA for over a decade. This news inspired the NSA's unpaid PR flack, Dianne Feinstein, to express her outrage that powerful people might be on the receiving end of the NSA's unblinking eye. She threatened a "complete review" of the NSA's tactics. Or did she?

This news failed to derail Feinstein's push to codify the NSA's current practices, something that doesn't really go hand-in-hand with a "complete review." But even this vague promise from one of the NSA's staunchest defenders was enough to bring a few angry tears to the agency's eyes.

The tapping of Merkel's phone was first presented as, "This is the first I've heard of this!" by the president. He claimed to be unaware of this activity and Jay Carney sent out a detail-free apology to Merkel stating that the NSA was not currently surveilling her, nor would it be in the future. Of course, it had enjoyed an 11-year run without interruption, so the loss of this single intercept isn't much of a problem. It still has 35 other foreign officials on (literal) tap.

But the sting of Feinstein's sudden disapproval, combined with Obama's claims of ignorance prompted agency heads to fire back. First, they claimed Obama had known about the surveillance since 2010. Then the claim was walked back, with the NSA stating this information hadn't been forwarded to the President.

Then the administration, now engaged in multiple diplomatic battles, did something unexpected: it joined Feinstein in selling the agency out. Its defense of the agency had definitely been cooling over the past several weeks, but the NSA couldn't have expected to hear the President ask for "additional constraints" on its surveillance programs.

Slapped twice, the NSA retracted its retraction and swung back at the administration it felt had cut the agency adrift.

The White House and State Department signed off on surveillance targeting phone conversations of friendly foreign leaders, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said Monday, pushing back against assertions that President Obama and his aides were unaware of the high-level eavesdropping.
Now, everyone's culpable. There are no "good guys" in this scenario. The administration attempted to slip out the back door unnoticed while the NSA defended the foreign surveillance it swore it wasn't doing, but the spooks had someone waiting in the alley. Having dragged the President and his staff down to its level, the NSA set about doing the same to its many accusers. All those collections of foreign phone data? "Not us."
U.S. officials said the Snowden-provided documents had been misinterpreted and actually show phone records that were collected by French and Spanish intelligence agencies, and then shared with the NSA, according to officials briefed on those discussions.
As was suspected, these nations' own intelligence agencies and telcos were gathering data and passing it on to the NSA. The intelligence agency was technically correct (the best kind of "correct"). It wasn't directly harvesting data. But it acquired the data nonetheless. It went even further in its denials, claiming that what was gathered wasn't even all that intrusive.
Based on an analysis of the document, the U.S. concluded that the phone records the French had collected were actually from outside of France, and then were shared with the U.S. The data don't show that the French spied on their own people inside France.

U.S. intelligence officials haven't seen the documents cited by El Mundo but the data appear to come from similar information the NSA obtained from Spanish intelligence agencies documenting their collection efforts abroad, officials said.
By stating the information dealt with non-domestic calls, the called-out intelligence agencies likely breathed a (short-lived) sigh of relief at not having been accused of anything approaching the NSA's level of domestic surveillance.

But even this illusion may not hold for long. During Mike Rogers' half-tantrum, half-circle jerk "intelligence hearing," Gen. Alexander coughed up some interesting answers in response to Rogers' lobbed softballs and smug "hmmms". If you can weave your way through Alexander's semantic smokescreen, the NSA head admits that not only is the NSA gathering European phone records directly but it (along with local intelligence agencies) is targeting wholly domestic communications. Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel breaks it down.
Rogers starts by asking Alexander to elaborate, specifically with regards to the US and NSA (he may be invoking the WSJ story, but he doesn't say so).

Rogers: And to that end, if I can, Mr. Alexander, there was some reporting that the story about French citizens being spied on by a particular slide that was leaked on a slide deck concluded that French citizens were being spied on. Can you expound on that a little bit? By the United States, by the way, specifically the National Security Agency.

Reading from a document of some sort, Alexander repeats the gimmick Clapper used last week, suggesting that the reports said the NSA had collected phone calls (content), then "corrects" their report to say Boundless Informant actually tracks metadata (which is actually what the reports had said).

Alexander: Chairman, the assertions by reporters in France, Le Monde, Spain, El Mundo, and Italy, L'Espresso, that NSA collected tens of millions of phone calls are completely false. They cite as evidence screen shots of the results of a web tool used for data management purposes but both they and the person who stole the classified data did not understand what they were looking at. The web tool counts metadata records from around the world and displays the totals in several different formats. [my emphasis]

Alexander then adds to last week's gimmick of claiming the Europeans reported these as calls, not metadata, by denying we, alone, collected this data.

The sources of the metadata include data legally collected by NSA under its various authorities as well as data provided to NSA by foreign partners. To be perfectly clear, this is not information that we collected on European citizens. It represents information that we and our NATO allies have collected in defense of our countries and in support of military operations.

This is not information "we" collected (on European citizens, but I'll come back to that), it's data "collected by NSA … as well as data provided … by foreign partners." It's data "we and our NATO allies have collected."

Those conjunctions — "as well as" … "and" — which in Alexander's written statement make it clear that both the Europeans and US collect this intelligence, disappeared from much of the reporting on this.
Wheeler goes on to explain how Rogers conversationally leads Alexander to assert a defense against any future accusations about spying on foreign individuals, or any nation's attempts to spy on their own citizens. Rogers makes the point that anyone could use undersea cables, etc. -- not just citizens of Country X. He also says that Country X could have citizens from Country Y living within its borders. While all of this is undoubtedly true, Rogers is basically giving Alexander all the rationale he needs to justify the NSA directly collecting data from foreign countries as well as giving local intelligence agencies the justification for domestic spying.
Rogers: Hmm. And so, let me just ask you this. If, as you study the networks of the world, let's just talk about the European Union for a second if I may. Is it possible for Chinese intelligence services, military or otherwise, to use networks that you would find in any nation-states of the European Union?

Alexander: Absolutely, Chairman.

Rogers: How about Russian intelligence services? Is it possible that they could use networks–communication networks, computer networks–inside the European Union for what they're up to?

Alexander: Absolutely, Chairman.

Rogers: How about al Qaeda? Would they use, could they use, is it possible for them to use the networks found in the European Union to conduct planning, operations, or execution of operations?

Alexander: They could, absolutely, Chairman. [my emphasis]
As it stands right now, the NSA has come out of the last batch of leaks related to foreign surveillance relatively unscathed. But the key is "relatively." At best, it comes out looking no better than the administration or its counterparts in foreign countries. Details have emerged indicating both Spain and France have gathered data and turned it over to the NSA, but French intelligence maintains it never gathered or turned over 70 million phone records in one month, perhaps suggesting there are parallel operations running here.

So, without touching the very latest leak, here's what we know/don't know.

The NSA did/did not/sort of did/still does/will-with-varying-amounts-of-cooperation collect millions of phone records overseas, phone records which did/did not involve wholly domestic communications and were/were not gathered solely by foreign intelligence agencies.

The NSA DID intercept world officials' communications, something the administration was/wasn't/was aware of. This has been condemned by the administration and intelligence leaders, which shows exactly what an intelligence agency has to do to lose top level support: anger the wrong people and, more importantly, get caught.

The NSA is now fully engaged in its own defense. Losing support it assumed was guaranteed has forced it to start playing dirty. With the administration swiftly extracting itself from this codependent relationship and an angered (but for all the wrong reasons) Sen. Feinstein targeting any number of surveillance programs, the NSA can no longer rely on rehashing talking points and staying above the fray. This will get nastier as it goes on, and that's wonderful. Any opponent of the NSA's programs has to be thrilled to see the agency left to fend for itself. Anyone who enjoys watching government entities forced to confront their own bad decisions has to be thrilled as well. It looks like the NSA is beginning to feel that if it can't have any secrets, neither can anyone else it "answers" to.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Oct 31st, 2013 @ 7:37am

    This news inspired the NSA's unpaid PR flack, Dianne Feinstein...


    Let's be fair, if she's not being well compensated now, she will be when her time in Congress ends.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 31st, 2013 @ 8:07am

    Not details: deluge of distractions, diversions, denials.

    Duly amplified by minion with wall of text, ending with the notion that NSA in on the defensive. Oh, yeah, they're going down... Sheesh.

    Where are your calls for action? Are you guys just, er... what's a euphemism for milking? ... pumping this NSA bit for all the page views you can get? Or would you actually like to see the programs ended and the known criminals in jail? -- INDICT, TRY, and JAIL 'EM ALL.


    Now how about the co-conspiracy implicit in this headline?

    NSA Bombshell Shocks Former Spooks: "Why in The World Would We Burn Google?"

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/30/nsa_bombshell_shocks_former_spooks_why_in _the_world_would_we_burn_google

    Yeah, why would they when Google is more than cooperating? Must just be the belt AND suspenders type of spooks, not trusting their own Google to turn over everything...

    Google. Making your life better by spying right up to the creepy limit. (tm) -- And soon as you're used to it, we get creepier!

    04:07:03[f-50-3]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Oct 31st, 2013 @ 9:00am

    Rumsfeld

    The NSA Is/Isn't/Is Doing And How Much The Administration Knows/Doesn't Know/Knows
    Where is Donald Rumsfeld when you need him?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2013 @ 9:32am

    Wikileaks is you friend

    Lets recall Boundless Informant:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundless_Informant

    Firstly Boundless information has low classification, so *content* isn't covered but it is most certainly captured.

    It doesn't cover ECI or FISA data (see point 5) in the pdf.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Doc01187620130608104422.pdf

    It doesn't cover metadata from "MUSCULAR" the current leaks.

    And these certainly are not captured BY France and refer to foreign data, they are ABOUT the coverage of France:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-526196-galleryV9-rboe.jpg

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), Oct 31st, 2013 @ 9:45am

    Well...

    There are no "good guys" in this scenario.
    I'd think Snowden is the closest thing we have to a good guy here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2013 @ 9:50am

    Famous last words

    "“This is not information that we collected on European citizens,” Alexander told the House Intelligence Committee. “It represents information that we and our NATO allies have collected in defense of our countries and in support of military operations.”"

    Countries he's spying on (includes all of NATO):
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Boundless_Informant_data_collection.svg

    NATO head quartered in Belgium (Belgacom hack by GCHQ). If they are allies under NATO, then UK would ask Belgium for access to the telecoms, they wouldn't be hacking them.

    What is Juggernaut BTW and LOPERS (on the German slide)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2013 @ 10:49am

    Looks like it's time for the NSA to start using it's "Mounds of product, to politically blackmail it's way out of this mess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2013 @ 10:55am

    It's been reported that every single red blooded American citizen has been spied on, and the Administration doesn't blink an eyelid.

    Then it gets reported that a foreign president has been spied on, and the Administration bends over backwards to condemn it.

    There you go America. Every single American Citizen, combined together, is worth less than a single foreign president.

    That's what our government thinks of us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Joe Dirt, Oct 31st, 2013 @ 10:58am

    Re: Not details: deluge of distractions, diversions, denials.

    you know... your comments might be taken seriously if you stuck to the point of the article and stopped the personal attacks on the blog and it's commenters.

    You're allowed to have an antithetical viewpoint without the vitriol. Try being civil, courteous and respectful. They seem to work for most people. Oh yeah, and try to have some facts to back up your points, not anecdotal, hateful spew.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Joe Dirt, Oct 31st, 2013 @ 11:02am

    Re:

    That's because that foreign head-of-state has something of interest to them. We, on the other hand, are already under their thumb due to an accident of birth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    out_of_the_blue (profile), Oct 31st, 2013 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re: Not details: deluge of distractions, diversions, denials.

    Civil, courteous and respectful? I know not these words! The only way I know to communicate an idea or plan of action is to scream and shout at you for not already doing it. Please, please, ignore the part where I'm not doing it myself, but for some reason, I feel justified in demanding the editors of this site do.

    05:31:49[57 48 41 54 20 54 48 45 20 46 55 43 4b 20 41 4d 20 49 20 44 4f 49 4e 47 20 48 45 52 45 3f]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Oct 31st, 2013 @ 5:50pm

    Who would have known?

    I became suspicious of Obama when as Illinois Senator and a stated opponent to the FISA act, he went back on his word and voted for it. Now, as POTUS he has been supporting the NSA to the fullest extent of his power. I have to wonder what dirt the NSA gathered on him back in his days as US Senator to do this. Also, I have to wonder if any of those documents Snowden liberated from the NSA show what it was...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This