NSA's Novel Claim: Our Systems Are Too Complex To Obey the Law 245
Reader Bruce66423 (1678196) points out skeptical-sounding coverage at the Washington Post of the NSA's claim that it can't hold onto information it collects about users' online activity long enough for it to be useful as evidence in lawsuits about the very practice of that collection. From the article: 'The agency is facing a slew of lawsuits over its surveillance programs, many launched after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked information on the agency's efforts last year. One suit that pre-dates the Snowden leaks, Jewel v. NSA, challenges the constitutionality of programs that the suit allege collect information about Americans' telephone and Internet activities.
In a hearing Friday, U.S. District for the Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey S. White reversed an emergency order he had issued earlier the same week barring the government from destroying data that the Electronic Frontier Foundation had asked be preserved for that case. The data is collected under Section 702 of the Amendments Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
But the NSA argued that holding onto the data would be too burdensome. "A requirement to preserve all data acquired under section 702 presents significant operational problems, only one of which is that the NSA may have to shut down all systems and databases that contain Section 702 information," wrote NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett in a court filing submitted to the court.
The complexity of the NSA systems meant preservation efforts might not work, he argued, but would have "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States.'
Adds Bruce66423: "This of course implies that they have no backup system — or at least that the backup are not held for long."
Fine ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't have your data available to demonstrate what you're doing it lawful, and you are going to delete it, then only reasonable conclusion is what you are doing cannot be proven lawful.
Therefore, the program is not lawful, and you need to stop.
Problem solved.
This amounts to "your honor, we collect so damned much information we couldn't possibly hold onto it long enough to be subject to legal oversight. Trust us."
What crap.
Are they arguing Occam's Razor? (Score:5, Insightful)
So wait, the NSA's argument as to why their program is legal.. is that they're too incompetent to design a system that can follow the law. Shouldn't this be grounds to fire everyone at the NSA for incompetence, if this is the argument they're using?
Can't hold data, or can't tell the truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
"This of course implies that they have no backup system — or at least that the backup are not held for long."
It implies nothing other than the NSA continues to lie whenever an order to turnover data is presented.
Re:Too Big to Be Indicted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
My biology is so complex it's not understood yet either!
Woohoo! Behold the new lawless me!!!!!
The Boy Who Cried Wolf (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything concerning the NSA has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Releasing any information has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Saving any information has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Any whistle blowers have "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Disagreeing with any official has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Giving out the legal reasoning behing their operations has "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
Why have more people not clued in that the NSA is "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States."
they have damaged the reputation of their agencies simply by believing that none of their secrets would get out. My mom always told me that once more than one person knows something it is no longer a secret and will not be kept that way.
Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA, The CIA, the FBI and the Justice department have already been caught in BOLD FACED LIES in regards to their activities on dozens of occasions. The Presidents (both Obama and Bush) have gone on National Television and lied directly to the American people regarding this programs over and over and over again. Several NSA directors have gone in front of congress and lied while under oath. They were then called back and admitted that they're lied. You cannot trust anything they say at all. The only solution to this is to shut down the agency. They are willing to violate the law, the constitution, court order and even the will of the president. No regulatory reform or court order will be effective against an agency that thinks its charter is more important than obeying the law or will of the people. They fundamentally believe that your physical safety is more important than our individual rights. That is totalitarianism. It is not a belief that is compatible with democracy.
I believe them (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the biggest system there is. There's nothing to 'back it up to', for various reasons. The letter of the (original) order can't be complied with, without shutting it off, and saving the current contents for the upcoming hearing (or trial). In the meantime, we have nothing as far as NSA protection goes. I get that.
That doesn't mean the the spirit of the order can't be complied with. Snapshots of sections, randomly chosen database blocks from among representative groups, a sampling of the most called routines; something. If it's a freaking computer, then there is some way that evidence can be gotten without bringing the system down, assuming cooperation on the part of the admins. I hope they are not getting off the hook.
Re:Lies. (Score:4, Insightful)
They fundamentally believe that your physical safety is more important than our individual rights.
You were great until that line. "Safety" is purely a PR term. They are protecting corporate interests, not individual's safety.
Re:Fine ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarcasm aside I think you make an important point... Between the “state secrets” privilege and the apparent willingness of the NSA to engage in a wholesale violation of the US Constitution and lie to congress and the courts I seriously doubt it would be remotely possible for a court to narrowly "rule on the facts" of the particular case. Rather courts are going to have to rule on the law and the probability that the NSA is violating individual liberties and then issue injunctions which give the government and the NSA and US government future instructions that the 4th amendment applies to their surveillance activities in the US despite whatever the Patriot Act might be interpreted to mean... meaning the courts will have to issue rulings based on what is permissible rather than issuing narrow injunctions against particular acts.
So for instance the court should simply rule that for the NSA to force companies to hand over business records including communications logs and the like that they need a warrant that complies with the 4th amendment and is issued: "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Re:Too Big to Be Indicted... (Score:5, Insightful)
We can call this The NSA Defense (our systems are too complex for the law), and the inverse of it is The Amazon Defense (the law is too complex for our systems).
Re:Fine ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally get that their systems very likely need to purge inconsequential data to remain effective. However, if the court forced a private company to retain data under a court order, it wouldn't care one wit about whether that was feasible within the system or not. If the private company did not comply, their officers would be held in contempt.
The NSA should not get special treatment in this case.
Too complex? Then simplify them! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fine ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if I design a system and I can't prove that it complies with all of the laws that regulates my field then I'm not allowed to sell that system.
If I sell it anyway then I will be fined. (Or possibly imprisoned if someone gets killed because of me not following the norms.)
If it is considered illegal when I design a system that is too complex to verify the legality of, why isn't it illegal for NSA?
Re:Too Big to Be Indicted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit unions.
Re:Fine ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are seriously overthinking this. Its very simple. They CAN save data. Period. How do I know? Its very simple here. Do you really believe that if they found credible data on a top Con Queso leader, that they would need to analyse it within a specific time frame before they lose it forever, or do you think they can flag it to be saved?
Very simple. Being able to do this is a basic requirement for them, so they can do it already, right now.
So any claim that they could not do this is so disingenuous on its face that it is ridiculous. If you claim in court that you can't be the rapist because you cut your penis off as a child, then at the VERY LEAST, you should fully expect to be dropping your pants in front of somebody who can verify this.
They may as well be claiming they don't use computers at all to do their work, the claim would be 100% every bit as credible.
Re:Too Big to Be Indicted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike politicians, who impose themselves even upon those, who voted against them, banks have no power over you if you don't use them. You don't have to convince other people to stop using banks — just stop doing it yourself and you'll be free from them...
Nobody forces people into the debt. They take it voluntarily and are genuinely happy, when their applications are approved. Without banks, you'd have to save money for 10 years before buying a house. With banks, you can move-in right away and pay off in 15 years. Loans are a service, that banks provide to willing customers.
I'm not aware of this "money sucking machine". Could you, please, elaborate?
Just what is it, that you'd like to see "untangled"?