NSA Phone Surveillance Program Cost $100 Million, Yielded One Major Investigation (thehill.com) 85
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: A National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program that accessed American citizens' domestic phone calls and text messages resulted in only one investigation between 2015 and 2019 despite costing $100 million, a newly declassified study found. The report, which was produced by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and briefed to Congress on Tuesday, also found that the program only yielded information the FBI did not already have on two occasions during that four-year period.
"Based on one report, F.B.I. vetted an individual, but, after vetting, determined that no further action was warranted," the report said, according to The New York Times. "The second report provided unique information about a telephone number, previously known to U.S. authorities, which led to the opening of a foreign intelligence investigation." The report contains no further details of the investigation in question or its outcome. The USA Freedom Act of 2015, the law that authorized the program, is set to expire March 15, but the Trump administration has asked Congress to extend it. The House Judiciary Committee is set to consider a bill that would end the program's authorization on Wednesday.
"Based on one report, F.B.I. vetted an individual, but, after vetting, determined that no further action was warranted," the report said, according to The New York Times. "The second report provided unique information about a telephone number, previously known to U.S. authorities, which led to the opening of a foreign intelligence investigation." The report contains no further details of the investigation in question or its outcome. The USA Freedom Act of 2015, the law that authorized the program, is set to expire March 15, but the Trump administration has asked Congress to extend it. The House Judiciary Committee is set to consider a bill that would end the program's authorization on Wednesday.
NSA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
They're part of the military, so duh. Congress signs the checks, though, so there is that.
Re: (Score:2)
They have financing from a myriad of sources. There is nothing to stop them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think the congresscritters give these guys essentially a blank check year after year? Couldn't be that they're worried about their dirty laundry will be 'leaked' at an inconvenient moment, that's just crazy conspiracy theory talk.
article summarized (Score:1)
Article summarized:
Unconstitutional NSA domestic surveillance program cost $10 billion, yielded zero useful intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Article summarized:
Unconstitutional NSA domestic surveillance program cost $10 billion, yielded zero useful intelligence.
Multiplying the cost figure in the article by 100x is not summarizing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded of the two million security cameras that the British police have access to which they say have prevented "dozens of crimes" over the last decade. Not "thousands", not "hundreds", not even "scores", a few dozen.
I don't think the Brits even have a clue how much they've spent on that program, but since a good fixed camera and weatherproof housing will cost $500-$1000 before even taking it out of the box, and a PTZ camera will be 3-5 times that price, it's a big chunk of money.
Well... (Score:1)
... only one legally defensible investigation at least. Tens of thousands of other "unofficial" investigations they had to burn all records of when they realized they were about to accidentally investigate themselves.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
It was a combination of too much information and six degrees of separation. Everyone was guilty and no one was, uncountably a lot of information was missed, cancelled out by bad information. Too be blunt, anal retentive data engineers thought they could data mine the information out but the excess of information created multiplying haystacks whilst throwing away contaminated needled after contaminated needle, contradicted by the flood of information. Yeah, data base engineers are not all they are cracked out to be, their assumptions used to generate formulae are their undoing. Too much guess work and not enough field work.
Re: Well... (Score:2)
true that. But while it's not as good as a machine that burns money directly, it is theoretically better because it makes Amerixans feel good about themselves while they burn money.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
DHS: "You're right, if we're going to find the terrorists, we need more hay."
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
The worst administrative sanction handed out was "a reduction in pay for two months, a reduction in grade, and access to classified information being revoked."
Re: (Score:2)
If it saved JUST ONE... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It didn't, though. All it did was clear the name of one poor sucker whose ass they they shouldn't have been crawling up to begin with. And it wasn't even me this time.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it saved JUST ONE... (Score:5, Insightful)
Darwinists would say: Lift the ban on guns, and the problem will solve itself evolutionarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let's ignore all those animals that guns kill, they don't matter anyway.
I would guess more animals get killed by cars than guns. Should we ban those too?
I personally don't hunt anymore, but I still understand the importance of it. Why do you think state fish and wildlife commissions control the number of animals that can be taken? In years when the deer population is high, they often times allow hunters to purchase additional deer tags. If they don't, then it's very common of deer populations to collapse due to lack of food. It also will cause deer to try to go to places they
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. I've come to realize that a surprising number of people are unthinking reflex-bots. Those who figure out how to program them get whatever rewards are derivable from doing so.
Re:If it saved JUST ONE... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if that 100 million dollars could have been used to save more than one child.
For which, it takes approximately .5 seconds to think of a way to save thousands of children with that money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right! The Secret Service spends twice that on golf carts!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For $100M you could provide free prenatal care for the bottom 1% of earners, or provide a significant subsidy for the bottom 10% of earners. That would save several hundred lives a year and would actually save about $350M in additional medical costs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the world of people for this exercise is not everyone in the US, but rather pregnant women. There are ~3.8M births per year in the US so you're looking at 380k for the bottom decile so the subsidy would be $263.
Re: (Score:2)
By the FSM's Noodly Appendage, I hope this is sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
If it saved just one Flying Spaghetti Monkey...
Re: (Score:1)
William Pitt
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't there more efficient ways to spend $100,000,000 saving children though? I think you could save at least two children for that much.
Re: (Score:1)
Aren't there more efficient ways to spend $100,000,000 saving children though? I think you could save at least two children for that much.
Not at government rates.
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, that is what you want, right? Everyone to get the healthcare they need without any out-of-pocket costs? No matter what those healthcare services are? Tell me I am wrong. But please also explain exactly what you want so we can avoid this confusion in
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If it saved JUST ONE... (Score:4, Informative)
The value of a statistical life is a bit less than $10 million in the US. So no, for 1 child, it isn't worth it. The program needs to save at least 10 lives to be considered worthwhile.
The value of a statistical life is used by various government bodies (FDA, DOT, EPA...) to determine if a safety-related expense is worth it. So when it comes to life saving, these $100 million are better spent elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
If it saved just ONE CHILD... it was worth it.
:) If the world operated that way, I'd rule it. Anything I wanted done, I'd just point a gun at a child's head and threaten to kill it if my demand wasn't met. Things would be simple. But, the quote is only trotted out for propaganda, and it turns out that actually saving just one child's life does not in fact make any given thing worth it.
(btw I know/assume you were being sarcastic or dramatic, I don't really know what I'm saying here or who my audience is. I just liked the idea of ruling the world.)
100 million dollars? (Score:1)
And how much does NASA have, again?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NASA's budget for fiscal year (FY) 2020 is $22.6 billion. It represents 0.48% of the $4.7 trillion the United States plans to spend that year. Since its inception, the United States has spent nearly US$650 billion (in nominal dollars) on NASA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That would have come from the discretionary side of the budget. Excluding Defense, that's roughly $700 Billion. The non-discretionary side that prevents Ma and Pa Kettle from moving in with you (among other things) is roughly $2.8-9 Trillion. I find it helps to have a sense of proportion in talking about budgets and what gets spent where. BTW: we are now running $1+ Trillion deficits every year. The "great" economy that pols like to honk on about is fueled by stealing from future generations who will be the
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA has its tech from Switzerland pointing inwards.
Only one NSA investigation (Score:5, Insightful)
$100 Million could be a bargain (Score:2)
To be honest, what is the right price for a catalyst to a foreign intelligence investigation? It could actually be a bargain, depending on the situation.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it is pretty clear by now that hypothetical ship has sailed.
Re: (Score:3)
It could be a bargain, if for instance it was used to fact check WMD claims and avoids wars.
Except most people could have told you WMD's were BS, without spendng any money.
Thus, money means nothing, without the will to look at actual facts, which governments try not to do, and the current US govt actively avoids.
Re: (Score:3)
It could actually be a bargain, depending on the situation.
Especially when you consider that they're not a law enforcement agency, they're military signals intelligence, and their job isn't to pass info to the FBI it is to pass info to the rest of the military.
That they forwarded suitable information for an investigation is nice, but I'm not sure if I want to see more of it or less of it, and I even appreciate their work.
Building 641A (Score:1)
The voice prints wont collect themselves.
I'm guessing it's a fraction of the Nsa/DHS budget (Score:2)
a very small fraction.
Yea (Score:5, Interesting)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Now if they are going to start cancelling programs because they don't work, does that mean the entire Homeland Security system can be cancelled?
I mean, how many terrorists have they caught? And how many people died because they drove instead of flying?
Re: (Score:2)
We'd roll back airport security to pre-911 security levels with 2 exceptions: 1) Keep the locked, reinforced cockpit doors and 2) keep the passenger awareness that hijackings mean likely death if you don't fight back and not a slightly inconvenient side trip to Cuba before being let go.
But that's just crazy talk! Quick, let's toss some more millions of dollars at another state-of-the-art scanning system which will definitely catch a terrorist this time! The manufacturer promises it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "spying on the Russians that Sir Grab ''Em By The Wherever was totally not in contact with."
POOR Metrics + corruption (Score:2)
1) Spying on Russians led to Trump being "spied" upon. If you deal with Russian spies and have shady dealings with shady Russians, you will be covered by the drag net! DUH! WTF are people so stupid?! No investigation is possible if you limit it to solely the primary target! The warrants (if any) would keep that info from being used in a case against you; that is the compromise designed into the system.
2) Soft power: direct investigation may yield little and not be their focus but "anonymous" tips and a tons
It's called "investigation", not "certainty". (Score:2)
One doesn't know the outcome in advance. That money was a research cost. Had the program not existed and the US sustained an attack it could have averted, there would be hell to pay and many Slashdotters would be baying for government blood.
Re: (Score:2)
So I suppose a million or two on tiger repelling rocks to be distributed across the country would be fine just in case?
I mean, what if they don't and someone gets attacked by a tiger?
Re: (Score:1)
I'll bring lilies to the funeral
Re: Today's Internet sucks beyond words. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody upvoted him. He added "(TrueScore: 4, Scary)" to the text of his own content manually. Sneaky!
Re: Today's Internet sucks beyond words. (Score:1)
If it cost a bundle of money it did its job. (Score:2)
If it cost $100 million, you don't think that's internal chargebacks do you? Somewhere out there are some politically connected vendors sucking up big chunks of that money. I've seen it first hand during the post 2001 anthrax scare.
what about corruption too (Score:2)
Empire building (Score:2)
Ah, but the program still achieved it's primary purpose: empire building for the SES and upper-level GAS employees. Man, that looks good on your annual review...
Just yesterday I was reading an article about the difference between private companies and government: projects in private companies have to show something for the money they invest, otherwise - sooner or later - they get shut down. In government, you are never held accountable, projects and departments never really die. It just all accumulates.
How
I'm impressed (Score:4, Insightful)
Big Whoop (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Going into this rabbit hole:
Bloomberg has spent ~$250M on his presidential campaign just to get his ass handed to him during the first debate . . . . . .
One Investigation; Multiple Tyrannies (Score:1)
...yielded the one MOST IMPORTANT letter: Q! (Score:1)
It doesn't matter if this was completely wasteful, and had zero investigations instead of one.
The one MOST IMPORTANT investigation is currently ongoing. Well, it's over, really; Q has stated "we have it all" and Q+ (President Trump) recently said in a speech, "We caught them! We caught them all red-handed!"
So, like two grand masters playing chess, they might know when the game is over, seven moves from the ending, long before the audience knows. The losing player might make random moves -- might make the
They wiretapped me! (Score:3)
Trump 2016: THE FBI WIRETAPPED ME! OPPRESSION!
Trump 2020: Dear FBI, Please extend the warrantless wiretapping program.