Chief NSA Lawyer Hints That NSA May Be Tracking US Citizens 213
itwbennett writes "Responding to questions from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday, Matthew Olsen, the NSA's general counsel, said that the NSA 'may', under 'certain circumstances' have the authority to track U.S. citizens by intercepting location data from cell phones, but it's 'very complicated.' 'There's no need to panic, or start shopping for aluminum-foil headwear,' says blogger Kevin Fogarty, but clearly the NSA has been thinking about it enough 'that the agency's chief lawyer was able to speak intelligently about it off the cuff while interviewing for a different job.'"
Very complicated (Score:1)
the NSA 'may', under 'certain circumstances' have the authority to track U.S. citizens by intercepting location data from cell phones, but it's 'very complicated.'
"Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.
Re:Very complicated (Score:5, Funny)
"Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.
No, remember this is a Senate committee. "Very complicated" is anything more advanced than a fork.
Re: (Score:2)
"Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.
No, remember this is a Senate committee. "Very complicated" is anything more advanced than a fork.
Actually, that is pretty good, considering most House committees haven't gotten past spoons.
Re: (Score:2)
"Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.
No, remember this is a Senate committee. "Very complicated" is anything more advanced than a fork.
Actually, that is pretty good, considering most House committees haven't gotten past spoons.
Ah, that's what all that talk about "silver spoons" is all about.
Re:Very complicated (Score:5, Funny)
I think it was a Terry Pratchett reference: "He realized that not only was he not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he might even be a spoon".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that is pretty good, considering most House committees haven't gotten past spoons.
Sure they have. Can't handle pork with a spoon.
Re: (Score:2)
> Can't handle pork with a spoon.
Correct! That's what the spork is for. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the chaos with a spork.
Re:Very complicated (Score:4, Funny)
Can't happen. The GOP cut funding for socialist utensils in the last budget.
Re:Very complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
"Very complicated", referring of course to the process of determining whether your political leanings are threatening or not to the government in power.
Possibly, but you have to understand that "the government in power" in this case isn't Obama, or Bush, or Congress, but instead the TLAs and their massive and growing secret activities. It doesn't matter, for instance, that they've knowingly and repeatedly violated the law - both the Attorney General and the federal courts have said, in short, "Regardless of whether the agency broke the law, you can't talk about it in an open courtroom. Case dismissed."
I'm going to also assume they've acquired dirt on most of Congress as well as the President and most presidential candidates, as a way to prevent their funding from being taken.
Re:Very complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Hoover and the FBI. Everything is cylical in nature indeed.
Re:Very complicated (Score:4, Informative)
The problem at this point isn't the Republicans or the Democrats. The problem is the Republicans AND the Democrats. Don't matter who is in charge.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why I prefer the term Republicrats. We stopped having a two party system a long time ago. Instead now we have a shell game and most of the sheeple eat it up.
sheeple? (Score:2)
When you use the word sheeple you start the us/them falacy which made wolves out of the previous users of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
When you use the word sheeple you start the us/them falacy which made wolves out of the previous users of the word.
When you use the word sheeple you reveal to the world that you are a twat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did the conversation about Murdoch and his tactics move west of the Atlantic?
Re:Very complicated (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What going to be 'very complicated' is reinventing the guillotine.
It would appear that we will have a lot of practice.
Too wordy, here's the short version. (Score:2)
"When we REALLY REALLY want to."
During the hearing . . . (Score:5, Funny)
. . . Fox News correspondents were seen sweating, nervously adjusting their collars, and making "SHHHH!" gestures to Mr. Olsen.
May be? (Score:5, Informative)
What about the secret rooms of ATT, where domestic US traffic was routed to the NSA?
NSA is, not "may be".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"May" ?? +3, Anonymous (Score:1)
The chief NSA lawyer is surely a credible source.
The NSA tracks EVERYONE [slashdot.org].
Yours In Miami,
Anonymous
Re: (Score:2)
Yours In Miami,
Anonymous
... but not to the NSA.
Translation: (Score:2)
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Very complicated" = "not ever actually constitutional, but the courts would never be allowed to challenge it so we could do it if we wanted"
Re: (Score:2)
that the agency's chief lawyer was able to speak intelligently about it...: Second lie.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Biggest lie of all, intelligence in the Senate, individually, committee-wise or otherwise.
Certain circumstances? (Score:4, Insightful)
if you are named... (Score:2)
If any of your names are Hussein, you are being surveiled, no exceptions...
This is my "shocked" face (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for Imperial America going away with Bush the Lesser.
Re:This is my "shocked" face (Score:4, Insightful)
No but he drove us down that road as fast as he could for 8 years.
Re: (Score:3)
What would make you think I had any intention of defending him?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to Godwin my post, but I'm hoping we're not heading into a Weimar Republic here. Congress is getting so dysfunctional that we're in danger of enough people deciding that we need One Leader simply to get things done.
"Certain circumstances" (Score:4, Funny)
Those being "Whenever the hell we feel like it."
Re: (Score:2)
Gambling in Casablanca! (Score:5, Funny)
I am shocked! SHOCKED!
Re: (Score:2)
I am shocked! SHOCKED!
Your winnings, sir...
Oh, thank you very much.
Unthinkable scenario (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
trailblazer technically defunct, they use (Score:2)
an unnamed project called by Bush after it was revealed the "terrorist surveillance program" (not its real name)
the NSA also uses pieces of the earlier Thinthread project, but with their privacy and anonmyization guts ripped out
the newest IT system (and/or "transformation system") they have is 'Turbulence', which includes offensive capabilities according to James Bamford's "Shadow Factory"
How is this anything new? (Score:1)
Tracking via cellular phones has been doable with a decent degree
As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.
Re:How is this anything new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this anything new? (Score:5, Informative)
which is NOT what they're supposed to be doing
Unless those people are in communication with people outside the country, in which case they (the domestic phone users) are one half of the call and tracking that is precisely what they're supposed to be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
they also catch soldiers phone sex with their (Score:4, Insightful)
wives back home. while they are deployed to afghanistan. at least according to Bamford's "Shadow Factory" (citing Adrienne Kinney, a former intelligence worker who was at an NSA in Georgia)
Re: (Score:2)
So monitor communications at the border, not inside
Have you ever actually used any sort of communications device? Perhaps a telephone, maybe? Never mind. It's not possible that you're that ignorant of how the systems involved actually work, so you're just trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the mission of the NSA isn't law enforcement, and it's a bit chilling to know that the spy agency that is more secretive than the CIA is actually pointing their sights at American citizens, which is NOT what they're supposed to be doing.
Why, because no American citizen could possibly prove a threat to national security? And no one in the US could be communicating with foreign spies? You seem to have a very naive view of the world.
Re:How is this anything new? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.
I do. NSA was chartered for the purpose of gathering electronic intelligence of our enemies abroad (at the time of its inception, the Soviet Union). I worked at NSA in the late '80s, and at the time, there were signs posted all over warning that NSA was specifically prohibited by executive order from conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens within the United States. The FBI is tasked with domestic law enforcement, not NSA; NSA has no business whatsoever conducting surveillance on American citizens within the U.S.
thank you for posting (Score:2)
if only more insiders were willing to speak out...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And whether it's by the FBI or the NSA is just nit-picking.
Re: (Score:2)
So if a terrorist had phoned Mr A in New York on the day of September 11 saying "congratulations on the bomb thing, now on to phase two" you don't think that any subsequent calls to/from Mr A should have been monitored?
In the general case, I don't think NSA should have had any clue that your hypothetical terrorist had called Mr. A. However, if they intercepted the call while the hypothetical terrorist was already being surveilled for another reason, then the proper response would have been to disclose to the FBI that Mr. A might possibly be connected with a terrorist organization so that the FBI could get a warrant to conduct an investigation legally and properly.
And whether it's by the FBI or the NSA is just nit-picking.
No, not by a long shot. That kind of thinking is dangerou
Re:How is this anything new? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the "certain circumstances" were "when we have a warrant" he wouldn't have had to beat around the bush, he'd simply have said "when we have a warrant".
Re: (Score:3)
As long as the circumstances are "when we have a warrant", then I don't see an issue.
So long as there is personal recourse against the judge that issued the warrant, if it turns out to be unwarranted.
What is the default assumption of cryptography? (Score:1)
Always assume they have the code.
Espionage 101 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A pay phone? How quaint! I haven't seen one that actually worked in years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like in the final season of 24, when Jack Bauer was on the run from the government, he bought about a dozen cell phones. Every time he made a phone call he would immediately throw the phone in a bin.
??? you realize (Score:2)
how many great artists and scientists have been at some time or another, drunk and/or homeless?
Re: (Score:2)
Crime 101 should be "don't commit crimes". Sadly, it doesn't seem to be.
but it's 'very complicated.' (Score:2)
I'm sure the equipment to do this is.
Well yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm hardly going to debate the ethics or constitutionality or whatever of this, because to the following, it's irrelevant:
If you care about your privacy that much, why are you willingly carrying around a device that's transmitting your position with little or no encryption to everyone who wants to see it? If you want to secure your network, do you leave an open WAP transmitting its SSID as widely as possible? This isn't someone planting a tracking device. This is you shouting loudly to everyone that you're here, and then complaining when someone takes note.
Re: (Score:2)
By extension, I shouldn't use a phone ever, because the person on the other end will almost certainly be vulnerable to tracking and eavesdropping.
We shouldn't have to spend our days attempting to cloak ourselves from our own government agencies. The ability of certain agencies to use GPS tracking has saved plenty of lives through helping to locate victims during rescue efforts, and that's just one worthwhile use. We shouldn't have to sacrifice that just to keep gratuitous government eavesdropping at bay. Th
Re: (Score:2)
When you're walking around the street talking to your significant other, although in public, you don't necessarily want someone to follow you around, take notes of what you're saying and keep track of where you've been.
Cellphone or not, just because someone can track you and listen in to your conversations easily, it doesn't mean that you've given them permission to or that they should do it on a whim.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hardly going to debate the ethics or constitutionality or whatever of this, because to the following, it's irrelevant:
If you care about your privacy that much, why are you willingly carrying around a device that's transmitting your position with little or no encryption to everyone who wants to see it? If you want to secure your network, do you leave an open WAP transmitting its SSID as widely as possible? This isn't someone planting a tracking device. This is you shouting loudly to everyone that you're here, and then complaining when someone takes note.
um, ya, don't you see all the peeps bitching about the wifi info google gathered? bunch of stupid ass consumers out there.
Re: (Score:2)
And, just as it is reasonable to expect that sociopaths will spy on you for their own advantage, it is reasonable to expect that sociopaths will steal your stuff if you make it easy.
A predictable percentage of humans qualify for ASPD or whatever they're calling it these days. Anybody trusting a significant number of humans should take appropriate precautions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can make a choice not to use a smart phone (or a cell phone, period) if you'd prefer.
Not easily--you need one for many jobs and they increase efficiency of communication and commerce.
If for whatever reason you were that paranoid about people knowing your whereabouts, just get another job that doesn't require you to have a cellphone.
Oh, and trading security for convenience is always a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, owning a house and car that is in any way visible merits the theft of all your worldly goods. Troll harder, friend.
No, it's more like if you drive around in a convertible smoking crack cocaine, and shouting out to passers by how you just shot your girlfriend, don't be surprised when the police stop you.
Does anyone really think this isn't going on? (Score:2)
Ever since ECHELON chatter started 10-12 years ago, does anyone really think that the UK–USA Security Agreement nations hasn't been doing this?
The problem is that it'd be hard to track everyone at once, even with super computers and satellites like LACROSSE there are just too many people to track, so they can probably actively track a few thousand to a million people.
If they want to look up where anyone else is, they can hit phone location, email IP, social media logs, international and domestic flig
Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that it'd be hard to track everyone at once, even with super computers and satellites like LACROSSE there are just too many people to track, so they can probably actively track a few thousand to a million people.
So what happens when the technology advances to the point where it is no more difficult to track the entire population of the U.S.? It's a logical fallacy to claim it's no big deal just because it's impractical given current technology. Technology will catch up, but if you wait until it does to object, it will be too late.
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely. I'm pretty sure that the tech to do so is reasonably priced now, for something with a budget like the NSA. What's the data bandwidth needed per person to track
- cell-related movements?
- voice calls (full audio)?
We already believe the NSA is doing the latter, and the former is likely less bits/sec, possibly by an order of magnitude or two. So, whatever datacenter in which they store the voice calls likely has a nice little partition or database where they can store any geolocation related things
Re:Does anyone really think this isn't going on? (Score:5, Informative)
...so unless NSA has taps on all the telecomm central offices, its going to be really hard to track and capture all of it.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they do:
Welcome to 1994.
A Scanner Darkly, Herd management (Score:3)
This is true. I expect that machines are sifting as fast as they can, and people are rapidly eyeballing the results (or listening to audio keyword excerpts at high speed) for human judgements. Something like what Phil Dick described in A Scanner Darkly.
Consider also that analysis of
Re: (Score:2)
Echelon (Score:2)
I am old enough to know.... (Score:2)
This shit never ends....
My regret, I'll be dead before spaces is opened up.
Another attempt another place to get it right.
Hmm. Complicated. (Score:2)
The only complicated part of this is the 'find some jackass to give a legal justification'.
~Sticky
You say potato, I say potahto... (Score:2, Informative)
And any of this matters how? Historically, all of the collective of government spy agencies (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), has made sharing of information opaque. Its not a 'request for information on a form', its a fat pipe 24/7/365 data stream. Now all of these countries have governments that strictly forbid that these agencies do not spy on the country they are in: The NSA does not spy on citizens within the United States, the GCHQ does not spy on citizens within the UK, the CSE does not s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that most countries have laws prohibiting spying by foreign agents on their citizens, otherwise espionage would not be a crime. :)
Complicated reasoning. (Score:3, Interesting)
With a warrant, any cop can do this.
Why is it either a surprise or a scare that the NSA can, with what is bound to be much higher standards for justification (as long as the Republicans aren't in the White House, in which case justification involves merely setting up plausible deniability)?
Re:Complicated reasoning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its the same from both sides, don't obscure the truth that the gov in general is running around destroying privacy and other rights while people fight about what side of some random carpeted aisle the idea came from...
Re: (Score:3)
With a warrant, any cop can do this.
They can't with me, cause I don't drive around with my cell phone turned on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could have asked anyone... (Score:2)
The most important part that is emphasized during the training is that the US Intelligence Community cannot collect or maintain intelligence information on US citizens or those assumed to be US citizens (anyone physically in the US is considered a US citize
Re: (Score:2)
Murphy's law, anyone?
That 99% of the intelligence gathering community is following the law to the letter is wonderful, but does not account for the damage that the 1% that are not following the law are doing. In so far as when things tend to go wrong, they go wrong catastrophically, you only need one agent in charge of important information to completely destroy the reason for having the agency in the first place. It's essentially a form of asymmetric warfare.
I pity anyone monitoring me (Score:2)
Why is anyone surprised by this? (Score:3)
Of course they track and watch some Americans. Some Americans are trying to do some very bad things. Simply being a US Citizen does not (unfortunately) mean you don't want to do harm.
Does it need to be done carefully? yes
Does it need oversight? YES
Could it be abused? yes
Can we stop doing it? no
Do we really want them to stop it? NO
it's not like after this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project [wikipedia.org] they just gave up that line of thought and went on to other things =)
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly, there's FBI for taking care of US citizens who mean to do harm. NSA is restricted by law to deal with foreign communcations only.
Rupert Murdoch (Score:2)
What should the citizens be more worried about, a private company violating their privacy by hacking their phones or their government violating their privacy by doing the same?
I know what I am more worried about, and it's not a private business (though, of-course, a private business that works with the government is another thing altogether.)
Re: (Score:2)
I hereby declare those laws unconstitutional.
Arrest the NSA!
Re: (Score:2)
I hereby declare those laws unconstitutional.
Arrest the NSA!
You are so on their shit list now.
Re: (Score:2)
I avoid doing anything illegal
There are so many laws in the states these days, it's impossible to know for certain you haven't done anything illegal. If someone watches you for long enough, they WILL find something to nail your ass to the ground for.
Re: (Score:2)