Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#51

Post by a3n »

malandrew wrote: post #28
a3n wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another possibility is that Chambliss is either lying, or acting as a PR functionary for the NSA.

Actually I would suspect a third possibility. It's the same problem that happens when a general visits a military base and makes rounds. Everything that is dirty will be swept under the carpet ahead of his visit so that he only sees what those on the base want him to see. This is such a common social phenomena that it should be obvious to everyone, especially those in positions of power and administration. If he show…

Certainly. And I'm sure Chambliss was not fooled.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#52

Post by vidarh »

malandrew wrote: post #28
a3n wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another possibility is that Chambliss is either lying, or acting as a PR functionary for the NSA.

Actually I would suspect a third possibility. It's the same problem that happens when a general visits a military base and makes rounds. Everything that is dirty will be swept under the carpet ahead of his visit so that he only sees what those on the base want him to see. This is such a common social phenomena that it should be obvious to everyone, especially those in positions of power and administration. If he show…

Or he sees only what he wants to see. "You don't do any of X, do you, because if you did that'd be embarrassing?". "No sir, of course not. Not right this instant".

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#53

Post by malandrew »

jkestner wrote: post #47
malandrew wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On this note, has anyone done any real social network analysis of all the people our congressmen and women meet regularly with? I know investigative journalists look a lot at campaign contributions, but besides those are there other sources of data from which it possible to draw association between Congressman Chambliss and people of importance in the Surveillance-Industrial complex and/or high ranking NSA officials?…

That would be a great volley back on how revealing metadata is, a la the Paul Revere piece. I know the White House has to keep these records - if congresspeople (AND their staff) don't, there oughta be a law.

Which watchdog group (e.g. EFF, change.org) would be the best one to propose a congressional metadata law?

If our elected officials can see value in knowing the metadata of his or her citizens, then the citizens that elected those officials should be able to see the metadata of everyone his or her congressman calls, meets with or emails. The same should apply to all the senior staff of any elected official. One of the easiest way to handle making sure official meetings outside the office are logged is to only allow expense reports to be honored, when the other party in the meeting is logged.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#54

Post by bmistree »

falk wrote: post #4

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this. 1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all the awful things the NSA has been up to. 2. NSA offials will deny any and all claims made by Greenwald. 3. Greenwald will release documents that directly refute the NSA's testimonial.

4. No actual consequences for anyone demonstrated to be lying.

Until officials are held accountable, why wouldn't they continue lying and denying? It's starting to get to the point where I'm more angry at congress members who should provide oversight, than the lying officials themselves.

As a simple example, if I'm an NSA official and contrast how James Clapper experienced absolutely no real consequences for perjuring himself [1], with how Snowden has been treated for rocking the boat, I honestly don't know what decision I would make.

[1] http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_a...

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#55

Post by baconner »

danenania wrote: post #43
dictum wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every response from the NSA and people speaking on their behalf, both before and after the Snowden leaks, has basically been 1. A denial that they have the "capability" to do [insert method of mass surveilance], leaving open the possibility that "capability" means legal authorization; 2. A quasi admission that maybe the surveillance happens (Clapper: "not wittingly"). In other words, "we're collecting everything, but…

'In other words, "we're collecting everything, but we'll only inspect your data if you're not American, or have a relationship of any kind with someone who has ever contacted a terrorist suspect."' Or if a random analyst is bored and finds you interesting for some reason.

or have a relationship with someone who has a relationship with someone who has ever contacted a terrorist suspect.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#56

Post by coopdog »

danenania wrote: post #43
dictum wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every response from the NSA and people speaking on their behalf, both before and after the Snowden leaks, has basically been 1. A denial that they have the "capability" to do [insert method of mass surveilance], leaving open the possibility that "capability" means legal authorization; 2. A quasi admission that maybe the surveillance happens (Clapper: "not wittingly"). In other words, "we're collecting everything, but…

'In other words, "we're collecting everything, but we'll only inspect your data if you're not American, or have a relationship of any kind with someone who has ever contacted a terrorist suspect."' Or if a random analyst is bored and finds you interesting for some reason.

Or if your information happens to be valuable (bitcoins, passwords, stock tips, blackmail material) and can be sold without it being traced back to an analyst in any of the facilities around the world where your information is cached.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#57

Post by cgio »

malandrew wrote: post #53
jkestner wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a great volley back on how revealing metadata is, a la the Paul Revere piece. I know the White House has to keep these records - if congresspeople (AND their staff) don't, there oughta be a law.

Which watchdog group (e.g. EFF, change.org) would be the best one to propose a congressional metadata law? If our elected officials can see value in knowing the metadata of his or her citizens, then the citizens that elected those officials should be able to see the metadata of everyone his or her congressman calls, meets with or emails. The same should apply to all the senior staff of any elected official. One of th…

I would guess the expenses are charged to the private party in the meetings you care about. This measure would probably only make some spicy meetings more frugal :-)

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#58

Post by mpyne »

zaroth wrote: post #40
Amadou wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Chambliss said in that quote does not contradict Greenwald's claim. When Chambliss uses the word "capability" he means legal capability. Greenwald is arguing that the enforcement of that requirement is trivial - equivalent to a checkbox that says "Do you have a warrant Yes/No?" I am entirely willing to believe that Chambliss is simply technologically naive enough that he doesn't even know how to ask the NSA if t…

I think you're right, which of course makes the entire statement a tautology. "The NSA has assured me it's not legal to do anything that's not legal." Thanks for sharing. Never mind that it's not legal to read emails, except with a single court order saying that it's legal to read EVERYONE'S emails. Which I believe they have. The main problem is the "business records" clause in PATRIOT must be found unconstitutional.…

> I think you're right, which of course makes the entire statement a tautology. "The NSA has assured me it's not legal to do anything that's not legal." Thanks for sharing.

That's true for the vast majority of law enforcement though.

The police have the technical ability to pepper spray you, or arrest you, or shoot you. It is compliance with policy and legal requirements that (generally...) prevent them from not shooting you, not a technical safeguard. It's policy/legal safeguards that prevent the local health inspector from arbitrarily shutting down your restaurant. NSA analysts get held to policy as well; there have been analysts caught looking up information on ex-wives, for example, and fired for cause, so while an analyst may have the technical ability to task PRISM inappropriately, it's not an unlimited ability.

Do I think that PRISM should have better technical safeguards on it? Absolutely, if only because it's easy enough to do, and the system is way more powerful than what a random county sheriff might have available to them. But I wouldn't read any more sinister connotation into the current level of safeguards; even nuclear weapons can be disabled by only 2 compromised missile techs, so this level of protection seems pretty ordinary for government work.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#59

Post by samstave »

coopdog wrote: post #56
danenania wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'In other words, "we're collecting everything, but we'll only inspect your data if you're not American, or have a relationship of any kind with someone who has ever contacted a terrorist suspect."' Or if a random analyst is bored and finds you interesting for some reason.

Or if your information happens to be valuable (bitcoins, passwords, stock tips, blackmail material) and can be sold without it being traced back to an analyst in any of the facilities around the world where your information is cached.

Exactly!

At this point - every single "analysts" security-clearance worthiness has been jeopardized.

I don't trust ANY NSA employee at this point. NONE.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#60

Post by falk »

lukeschlather wrote: post #19
falk wrote: post #4

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this. 1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all the awful things the NSA has been up to. 2. NSA offials will deny any and all claims made by Greenwald. 3. Greenwald will release documents that directly refute the NSA's testimonial.

Please, take the time to read the article. > “In fact, we don’t monitor emails. That’s what kind of assures me is that what the reporting is is not correct. Because no emails are monitored now,” [Senator] Chambliss said. “They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. So I feel confident that there may have been some abuse, but if it was it was pure accidental.” They've essentially admitted that Greenwald'…

I did read the article. There's a lot more information to be released. Snowden took thousands of documents that he hand selected. Greenwald has said that there are more NSA programs to be exposed.
Post reply on HN