Disputed NSA Phone Program Is Shut Down, Aide Says (nytimes.com) 117
According to a senior Republican congressional aide, the National Security Agency has quietly shut down a system that analyzes logs of Americans' domestic calls and texts. "The agency has not used the system in months, and the Trump administration might not ask Congress to renew its legal authority, which is set to expire at the end of the year, according to the aide, Luke Murry, the House minority leader's national security adviser," reports The New York Times. From the report: In a raw assertion of executive power, President George W. Bush's administration started the program as part of its intense pursuit for Qaeda conspirators in the weeks after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and a court later secretly blessed it. The intelligence contractor Edward J. Snowden disclosed the program's existence in 2013, jolting the public and contributing to growing awareness of how both governments and private companies harvest and exploit personal data. The way that intelligence analysts have gained access to bulk records of Americans' phone calls and texts has evolved, but the purpose has been the same: They analyze social links to hunt for associates of known terrorism suspects.
Congress ended and replaced the program disclosed by Mr. Snowden with the U.S.A. Freedom Act of 2015, which will expire in December. Security and privacy advocates have been gearing up for a legislative battle over whether to extend or revise the program -- and with what changes, if any. Mr. Murry, who is an adviser for Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, raised doubts over the weekend about whether that debate will be necessary. His remarks came during a podcast for the national security website Lawfare. Mr. Murry brought up the pending expiration of the Freedom Act, but then disclosed that the Trump administration "hasn't actually been using it for the past six months." "I'm actually not certain that the administration will want to start that back up," Mr. Murry said. He referred to problems that the National Security Agency disclosed last year. "Technical irregularities" had contaminated the agency's database with message logs it had no authority to collect, so officials purged hundreds of millions of call and text records gathered from American telecommunications firms. A spokesman for Mr. McCarthy's office said that Mr. Murry "was not speaking on behalf of administration policy or what Congress intends to do on this issue."
Congress ended and replaced the program disclosed by Mr. Snowden with the U.S.A. Freedom Act of 2015, which will expire in December. Security and privacy advocates have been gearing up for a legislative battle over whether to extend or revise the program -- and with what changes, if any. Mr. Murry, who is an adviser for Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, raised doubts over the weekend about whether that debate will be necessary. His remarks came during a podcast for the national security website Lawfare. Mr. Murry brought up the pending expiration of the Freedom Act, but then disclosed that the Trump administration "hasn't actually been using it for the past six months." "I'm actually not certain that the administration will want to start that back up," Mr. Murry said. He referred to problems that the National Security Agency disclosed last year. "Technical irregularities" had contaminated the agency's database with message logs it had no authority to collect, so officials purged hundreds of millions of call and text records gathered from American telecommunications firms. A spokesman for Mr. McCarthy's office said that Mr. Murry "was not speaking on behalf of administration policy or what Congress intends to do on this issue."
Sure it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government officials outright denied having such program in the first place, up until Edward Snowden revealed that this stuff was indeed real and in use. How can we trust them to tell the truth now?
Look at exactly what they said and how. (Score:5, Insightful)
That ONE system isn't being used. They didn't mention the ones that ARE. They don't credibly claim that they've turned off XKEYSCORE and the entire chain. It's a very limited statement designed to say exactly what it says.
Re: Look at exactly what they said and how. (Score:1)
More like they stopped using that codename.
They neglected to tell you they switched code names or transferred all the project assets to a different program.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(it is called Facebook)
Re: (Score:3)
CARNIVORE is apparently also still alive, monitoring email throughout the USA's core internet backbone routers. It was merely renamed "DCS1000".
Re: (Score:3)
is the 3 letter agency in palo alto some new meme since everyone seems to work there these days.
also who the f uses texts and calls anymore?
why do you even have trolls, wouldn't they need to use the system first to track who you are?
Re: (Score:2)
He meant the DMV.
Re:Sure it is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You apparently cannot read, your statement had nothing to do with anything above it. Also yes, the NSA collects a lot of stuff including data involving Americans, and no, it's not illegal.
But here's the text of the link you were too lazy to read or reply to :
Despite their insistence that there was “no collusion” with the Kremlin, Trump associates had plenty of secretive interactions with Russians. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidence that a
Re: Sure it is... (Score:2)
The Clinton-Russia Coverup continues..
As does Russia's efforts to ensure we pay attention to the dancing bear. Nothing else to see here folks just a circus, oh and a bit of bread.
Re: Sure it is... (Score:4)
Why won't the FBI declassify the Uranium One documents? Who was FBI director at the time of the Uranium One deal? Why didn't Mueller recuse himself in the so-called "Russia investigation"?
The Clinton-Russia Coverup continues...
Really, we're still on the Uranium one deal? Fox News, of all outlets, debunked [businessinsider.com] this over a year ago.
From the linked article: "The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not," Smith said. "A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the US to Russia."
There is plenty for which to criticize Hillary Clinton. You don't have to resort conspiracy theories.
Re: Sure it is... (Score:3)
As Secretary of State she could have killed the sale, and as Secretary of State she would likely be able to influence the Presidentâ(TM)s decision as part of her normal duties.
When approval must be unanimous, any one of the approves can make or break the deal.
Could the deal have gone forward without her approval/support? Doubtful.
When HRC was on a trajectory to the Oval Office her houndation took in huge amounts of donations, as soon as she lost the election donations all but stopped. Coincidence?
We kn
Re: (Score:2)
As Secretary of State she could have killed the sale, and as Secretary of State she would likely be able to influence the Presidentâ(TM)s decision as part of her normal duties.
When approval must be unanimous, any one of the approves can make or break the deal.
Could the deal have gone forward without her approval/support? Doubtful.
When HRC was on a trajectory to the Oval Office her houndation took in huge amounts of donations, as soon as she lost the election donations all but stopped. Coincidence?
We know that her scheduler made notes of major foundation donors on her daily schedule as (fob, friends of bill) - why would donations stop if not connected to her work? The mission of the foundation never changed. Why note FOB on calendar if it didnâ(TM)t get the visitor special access?
I would not be surprised if this were the case. I understand how political power works. But the frothing over the Uranium One deal is that Secretary Clinton sold Uranium to Russia. That does not appear to be the case. That's all I'm saying.
Re: Sure it is... (Score:4, Interesting)
->Why didn't Mueller recuse himself in the so-called "Russia investigation"?
Assuming this is a serious question and not just retorical propaganda.
Because he didnt have a conflict of interest from being involved in the Trump campaign.
Luckily for the entire Americunt justice system. Previously investigating criminals in the past doesnt mean you have to recuse yourself from investigating criminals in the future.
Being motivated to put effort into finding crime makes for a good investigator.
And also, he had previously been involved in covering up both Trump and Clintons visits to Lolita island, so they could be sure he wouldn't expose too much about the wrong people.
Re: Sure it is... (Score:2)
Having a back-channel with Russia was vital in defusing the Cuban Missle Crisis, but since that occurred before most slashdot terms were born they donâ(TM)t know about it.
That's called doing their job. Also see Cuban miss (Score:3, Interesting)
> Why would Trump associates continue pursuing a back channel nine days before the inauguration?
See for example the Cuban missile crisis. Which would have been the nuclear war, had it not been for back channels facilitating a peaceful resolution by letting leaders on each side know what the other one would accept and not accept via official communications.
You copy-pasted a lot of stuff about "December 1" and "days before the inauguration". That's when Trump was the president-elect. When he was about to
Re: (Score:2)
Good question. Public vs private & other reaso (Score:3)
That's a good question. There are several reasons, some of which are unique to international relations and some of which apply to any negotiation, and you can use yourself.
In high-profile political relations, one thing very important to the leaders is to look like they won. In many cultures, they want to look "tough". They don't want the appearance of giving in. In fact, for their career it's often better to not make a deal at all than to look like they gave in. For their countries, making a deal is normall
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really that dim? You can't necessarily shout everything you know. That's called being stupid.
Instead, each side is playing both internal and external politics. Trump has to take a "I won't take in shit off of that Kim, guy" stance internally, while being agreeable to Kim externally. Kim has to take a "I'm standing up to the evil America" stance internally, while being agreeable to Trump externally. What they both do is negotiate a stance that allow both leaders to save face internally, while di
FBI and NSA used Hillary-paid fan fiction (Score:1)
You wouldn't like people who used fan fiction paid for by your political opponent as the basis for turning the entire US intelligence gathering powers against you either.
Because that's what the fantasy-based ("uncorroborated" and "unconfirmed") Steele dossier is - Hillary-paid-for fan fiction.
And the FBI used it as the basis of at least four FISA warrants, and deliberately used it to brief Trump so they could then leak it to the press.
Re: FBI and NSA used Hillary-paid fan fiction (Score:2)
What part of the Steele Dossier has been proven correct? Be specific.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You wouldn't like people who used fan fiction paid for by your political opponent as the basis for turning the entire US intelligence gathering powers against you either.
Because that's what the fantasy-based ("uncorroborated" and "unconfirmed") Steele dossier is - Hillary-paid-for fan fiction.
And the FBI used it as the basis of at least four FISA warrants, and deliberately used it to brief Trump so they could then leak it to the press.
Much of the Steele Dossier has been proven true [lawfareblog.com] by subsequent investigation. None of it has been proven false, AFAIK.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? lawfareblog? Glen Greenwald, not exactly a conservative, has called lawfareblog a tool "serving, venerating and justifying the acts of those in power", in this case the Democrats. It's highly regarded by left wing pundits.
So basically the best you've got is a dossier put together by a British intelligence mercenary for opposition research paid for by the DNC.
The truth is that none of the dossier has been proven true, despite the claims of many left wing media "news" services. Despite the point made
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't trust anything from lawfareblog.com. What I would trust is the documentation covering the Woods Procedure.
That's a procedure, invented by one Bob Mueller, that outlines how evidence is to be validated before being used for a FISA warrant. You keep believing in your lawfareblog fantasies. I want to see how the professionals verified the dossier that looks exactly like an article that Glen Simpson wrote for the Washington Post years ealier with just a few name changes.
Re: FBI and NSA used Hillary-paid fan fiction (Score:2)
Hereâ(TM)s an example of proof:
Interviewer: do you have any properties or projects in Russia?
Trump: no, all around the world but none in Russia
Cohen testimony indicates trump was trying to negotiate a deal unsuccessfully.
The Cohen testimony is viewed by author as PROOF that Trump lied!
In fact, negotiating to start a project is very different than having a project in a foreign country, but with a little bit of TDS negotiating equals ownership.
Read your link again, it isnâ(TM)t the slam-dunk piece y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump doesn't seem to like the NSA or FBI very much. That could theoretically be a false flag, but I think they actually just don't like each other.
Obama liked it fine. Good thing we have Trump now.
Re: Sure it is... (Score:2)
Re: Sure it is... (Score:2)
Perhaps various bad actors in USIC are worried that President Trump, once he wins reelection by a landslide, will begin to de-Stalinize the federal government. One can see how that might be an unappealing prospect for people who made a career of shitting all over the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
will begin to de-Stalinize the federal government.
What does that even mean?
Re: Sure it is... (Score:2)
It means to roll back the unamerican, seemingly Stalinesque policies - domestic spying, the police state, the gulag, coerced false confessions, citizen disarmament, secret laws, secret courts, torture camps, etc - that are undermining the freedom and prosperity of our country.
Re: (Score:1)
Government officials outright denied having such program in the first place, up until Edward Snowden revealed that this stuff was indeed real and in use. How can we trust them to tell the truth now?
There's not a damn thing the NSA could ever claim right now that would be accepted as truth by a majority. They're professional liars. It's what they do for a living. Even a child would question their honesty at this point. Public statements are nothing more than another manipulation tool in the arsenal. If they're opening their mouths, it's to say something they want or need you to believe.
No. Really. (Score:1)
It really is shut down.
They have a new and improved program now, hosted in a newly built datacenter/tap.
The old program is shutdown. This new one is a whole other level.
NSA? Google! (Score:3, Insightful)
Google knows more about all of us than the NSA,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's this. And people don't seem to realize or care.
A lot of the spying that the NSA does has been outsourced to tech companies that collect the same information "for advertising purposes." Totally legal and completely opaque.
They then grant government agencies complete access to their databases as part of secret government contracts. Sometimes these are several layers deep - there are a ton of "aggregation" companies that do nothing but merge "advertising" data from multiple sources. So you'll get a "marke
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes these are several layers deep - there are a ton of "aggregation" companies that do nothing but merge "advertising" data from multiple sources. So you'll get a "market research" company that correlates Google and Facebook and Twitter data into a single consumer profile, which can be used to target advertising ... or for the NSA to track people.
Just want to tack on that one of the biggest trackers is the credit card in your wallet. That 3 pages of 4pt text that was your credit agreement has a paragraph about them "from time to time" sharing your purchase information with "partners". In reality, they will sell the info on everything you've purchase to anybody with a cashier's check.
No Need (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been superseded by a new, broader, more secretive, more intrusive, more brazenly unconstitutional program.
Re:No Need (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just a telephone wiretapping program (Score:1)
The evidence Snowden presented was of comprehensive digital surveillance programs that were described as encompassing virtually all online activity by means of intercepting traffic and direct assistance of "partners" (Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Skype, and Apple). Responding only to the "telephone metadata" part was a lie by omission that the media willingly participated in.
BS (Score:1)
The only wat the NSA would shut down a program is if it were obsolete. Presumably they don't need to specifically capture metadata anymore because they're now capturing the complete phone call through some other program.
Well, I for one totally believe the NSA (Score:5, Informative)
... after James Clapper lied to Congress [theguardian.com].
Sorry, I mean "simply forgot" to mention it as his lawyer puts it. "Oh, you Congressmen were asking questions about that surveillance program? I thought you meant another one."
It was so nice of Edward Snowden to remind him about it. And what thanks does he get?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I would like to follow up with John Brennan's comments to Congress, involving the CIA.
He was asked if the CIA was spying on the Senate, he said no. They were (reasons for it were astonishingly bad)
Michael Cohen, most evil person on the planet for lying to Congress saying March 2016 instead of June 2016 (that was the lie that got him 2 year jail sentence).
Meanwhile, Brennan and Clapper were never charged for much worse lies.
DC can't be fixed, NSA and CIA can't be trusted.
Re: (Score:3)
Continuity of Government is the most important government program and the 'intelligence' agencies support that, not the Constitution.
Clapper was Just Following Orders.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tells you a lot about the Republicans (Score:2)
Now that this âtacticâ(TM) has been discussed, a Democrat administration will use it to address the national crisis of gun violence, medical care for all, andclimate issues GUARANTEED. Do you imaginetheDemocrat bade will letthose problems persist knowing theirs an easy way to address the issue with the stroke of a presidential pen?
Explain how that can happen (Score:2)
Re: Explain how that can happen (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s a power Presidentâ(TM)s have but never used, now that the genie is out of the bottle, do you really imagine a President Kamala Harris or Cory Booker will say âoeyeah, I could invoke a national emergency and fix [global wrming|gun violence|medicare for all|college debt|opiod crisis] continue but since Trump didnâ(TM)t build the wall congress refused to fund, my hands are tied.â
And remember, it was the Supreme Court that upheld the Obamacare âoetaxâ despite democrat
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention (according to TFA), "...and a court later secretly blessed it." That is, it wasn't "a raw assertion of executive power...."
Re: (Score:1)
Funny... It was a Republican President in his farewell address to the nation Jan of 1961 who told us about the MIC and NOBODY listened then.
Re: Tells you a lot about the Republicans (Score:2)
I like Ike
100% true (Score:1)
We shut down that one and are using something much more effective now. It even detects people writing treason on webs
In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't need it anymore. They got something better.
calls and texts (Score:1)
Not really surprising. people are moving to internet based communications. calls and texts have moved to the background. I'm sure they have enough internet based spying systems operational.
Trust but verify (Score:2)
"might not ask Congress to renew its legal authority,"
Yeah, so who watches the watchers? We have no good reason to trust this or any other agency. None.
Unused is not âoeshut downâ (Score:3)
"The agency has not used the system in months, and the Trump administration might not ask Congress to renew its legal authority, which is set to expire at the end of the year, according to the aide, Luke Murry, the House minority leader's national security adviser," reports The New York Times.
Theyâ(TM)ve likely just found newer, less legally challenging ways to achieve the goals of the original program. They are doing something with their SLC data center...
leaking classified info (Score:2)
"Mr. Murry...disclosed that the Trump administration 'hasn't actually been using it for the past six months.'" That sounds a whole lot like leaking current intelligence methods. I'd suspend Mr. Murry's clearances for awhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it is a ruse.
"That old thing! Nobody is using that. Go ahead. Use the phone. Nobody is listening anymore."
why I take this as a victory (Score:1)
Usually the government expands this stuff and then they almost publicly BRAG about. The fact that the bragging might be receding and and attempt to portray a whiff at privacy at least leaves young minds open to the ideal that government should not be invading our every choice.
Bush and Trump did so many brazen things over this and both parties in DC LOVED it
We used to call this upgrades (Score:2)
The old system is replaced by a different suite.
Headline: Robocallers Beat NSA (Score:1)