NSA Collected US Email Records In Bulk For More Than Two Years Under Obama (w/Documents) - Guardian

[WillyT]

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

NSA collected US email records in bulk for more than two years under Obama
• Secret program launched by Bush continued 'until 2011'
• Fisa court renewed collection order every 90 days
• Current NSA programs still mine US internet metadata
Glenn Greenwald and Spencer Ackerman - guardian.co.uk
Thursday 27 June 2013 11.20 EDT .

<snip>

The Obama administration for more than two years permitted the National Security Agency to continue collecting vast amounts of records detailing the email and internet usage of Americans, according to secret documents obtained by the Guardian.

The documents indicate that under the program, launched in 2001, a federal judge sitting on the secret surveillance panel called the Fisa court would approve a bulk collection order for internet metadata "every 90 days". A senior administration official confirmed the program, stating that it ended in 2011.

The collection of these records began under the Bush administration's wide-ranging warrantless surveillance program, collectively known by the NSA codename Stellar Wind.

According to a top-secret draft report by the NSA's inspector general – published for the first time today by the Guardian – the agency began "collection of bulk internet metadata" involving "communications with at least one communicant outside the United States or for which no communicant was known to be a citizen of the United States".

Eventually, the NSA gained authority to "analyze communications metadata associated with United States persons and persons believed to be in the United States", according to a 2007 Justice Department memo, which is marked secret.

<snip>

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-mining-authorised-obama

The Documents: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection

[Pholus]

1. Well, we were told nobody was listening to our __Calls___!

[ohheckyeah]

3. I personally think that

saying nobody is listening to our calls is just semantics. I don't doubt they aren't listening - it's much easier to read than listen. It's easy to use software to turn all calls into text, text which is much more easily searched than audio.

[Pholus]

7. Bingo. And once transcribed it's easier to analyze in software. nt

[ohheckyeah]

14. Absolutely.

They are collecting data for a reason and it's not to let it sit for a couple of years just to delete it.

Text is much easier to use software on to analyze it, sort it, file it, etc.

[kelliekat44]

57. Funny, i didn't even notice. nt

[Recursion]

5. They are neither listening to calls nor reading emails.

They are tracking who calls whom and were tracking who emails whom.

[Pholus]

9. Awesome. Cause there is no harm that could come from misusing that.

In case you can't remember the FBI has recent and documented problems telling the difference between Quakers and Terrorists.

It makes all that talk about making us "Safe from Terrorists" a little less comforting.

[Recursion]

12. I can think of more harm from them misusing my medical records, but I want universal healthcare.

If I thought the government were regularly breaking the law I certainly wouldn't be a Democrat.

[Pholus]

13. Ummmm. Okay then. I'll just wait a while. nt

[Romulus Quirinus]

31. Do you not worry for the future, though?

That our leaders might not be so benevolent in the long term?

Swords of Damocles and all that.

[Recursion]

32. Then why are we for universal health care?

Can you imagine what a President Santorum would do with access to our health records?

[Romulus Quirinus]

35. What would he do with them, if we had an NHS?

other than attempt to dismantle it, of course.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems to me that a health record containing a history of foot corns and diabeetus isn't as threatening, in that case, as a history of email exchanges with someone who is now bad odor with the law.
Perhaps they could reveal a history of STDs, but that same data could be extracted using either bag of dirty tricks.

I should elaborate on what I mean by "Sword of Damocles." While the law states that only metadata may be kept, the infrastructure is in place to do so much more. Would it not be a straight forward change to command such a system to, for example, keep entire email messages rather than harvesting headers only? Perhaps even a one-liner in the responsible code.

While this sword is not falling on us at this moment, it would only take a secret legal opinion and the stroke of a pen from a less enlightened inhabitant of the Executive Suite to drop it on us all. I recognize that this capability is, in some sense, here to stay, and arguably necessary. Since a penny of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and since the system is not going away, I'd rather we set strong, public constraints on these programs now (change the thread holding the sword into a logger's chain) in order to decrease the risk, rather than wait until the line snaps. Attempts at such strong controls have been attempted with health records (HIPAA), with mixed success.

[Recursion]

36. Ah, you have nothing to hide, medically, so you aren't worried?

I've heard that before.

I should elaborate on what I mean by "Sword of Damocles." While the law states that only metadata may be kept, the infrastructure is in place to do so much more. Would it not be a straight forward change to command such a system to, for example, keep entire email messages rather than harvesting headers only? Perhaps even a one-liner in the responsible code.

OK, you say this, and you still don't have a problem with a Republican president having access to your health records?

[Maedhros]

39. And thus, a new talking point is born.

"Blanket surveillance is OK because HEALTHCARE!"

[Romulus Quirinus]

41. Not at all! I am honestly not trying to be obtuse.

Say I was a gay man who had not revealed this to his conservative employers, and I have made myself known to President Santorum due to being a nuisance at a public event. He tells his spooks to look in my NHS record and find some dirt. Lo and behold, he finds I have a chronic HIV infection and have reported a homosexual relationship to my doctor. He could then hold this over my head as blackmail or release it to the regular suspects in the right-o-sphere and attempt to smear me (assuming this is still an effective tactic 10 years from now).

However, to do so, he would have to break the law (HIPAA, in this case).

Similarly, he would have to break the law to extract my closet-skeletons via the FBI/NSA route, as you and others have outlined previously. This, if I understand correctly, is the heart of your comparison.

However, there is a difference in the threat level.

1) Abuses of an NHS would be easier to audit and reveal, since there should be no security clearances attached to the operations of such a system, outside of HIPAA-style privacy protections.

2) FBI/NSA style intelligence gathering is much more opaque, concealed with several levels of security and having a very low audit rate. Also, it can gather much more than my medical history. It can potentially know my entire social network (if I'm not cautious or technology aware) as well as the contents of all my electronic communications. Breaching the NHS database is a violation, to be sure, but that data is a small subset of what can be found using intelligence systems, and I have no way to protect myself because I have no way of knowing how they got that information.

Moreover, the good yielded by an NHS would heavily outweigh the risk, based on examining the dozens of diverse implementations the world over, whereas we have no proof of efficacy with respect to intelligence gathering systems.

Thus, I think the argument can be made that supporting an NHS would not conflict with the goal of restraining in law our electronic eavesdropping capabilities.

[RC]

45. All universal health care means is that everyone has health care and the government

is footing the bill.

It does NOT mean that the government is providing the health care. All the government does is act like the health insurance companies do now, only without the profit, CEO bonuses, multi-million $$$ CEO salaries and stock options payouts on Wall Street.
For instance in Canada, the health care is private. The doctors are private, the hospitals are private, the clinics are private. The government takes care of the bill.

[Recursion]

47. They keep a record of everything they pay for

Why trust HHS with that?

[RC]

50. So you'd rather continue haveing the greedy, private, health insurance companies do the same thing?

The government has a much better record in this regard. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, for examples. Also the government will not refuse to pay to protect the bottom line, the profits.

Are you sure you are on the correct web site?

[Recursion]

52. I'm not the one saying the govt can't be trusted

I'm for a national health Service. I also recognize that has more potential for abuse than the NSA writing down who calls whom.

[Ms. Toad]

48. You better watch out..

I'm armed with my old leather breeches and my shaggy-shaggy locks, and darn good pot luck recipes (one of the few Quaker sacraments ). That's how we Quaker terrorists operate.

, just in case someone is listening, er reading...

And, BTW, George Fox has been dead for more than 300 years. No need to try to find him...(one of the most amusing parts of reading the 70s FOIA documents included the occasional indication those spying on us were hot on the trail of some long dead Quaker)

[Pholus]

53. Insidious....

and dastardly. No wonder you guys got on a watch list!

Though as a good Minnesota Scandinavian, I'd be happy to bring a hot dish to your next pot luck!

By the way, that NSA operative behind the couch looks like he's hungry too....

[Ms. Toad]

63. July 20. Cleveland.

Be there, or be square.

Alas we just sold our couch...so I guess I'll have to go search the building to make sure he doesn't starve. Darn, those operatives require way too much attention. If they'd just walk in the front door and join us, rather than sneaking around pretending we can't see them.

[Fire Walk With Me]

54. Section 1061 of the 2014 NDAA allows for analysis of previously collected data.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023057822

[Recursion]

55. And I strongly oppose its passage (nt)

[Fire Walk With Me]

58. Excellent. However: NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

[Recursion]

59. of course they *can*. HHS *can* sell your info to Merck

The question is *are* they?

[leveymg]

2. So, they still have all those emails, and will keep them 5 yrs, until 2015-6 under current rules?

My, hope and change.

[JoePhilly]

4. So the Obama administration reviewed, and then ended, this program.

Odd that THAT is not the headline.

Well, not really.

A headline indicating that Obama ended this program would not generate sufficient outrage.

[Ms. Toad]

49. In 2011. Near the end of his first term. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

6. So?

[JaneyVee]

8. So does my email provider. Program is history now.

[Pholus]

17. Which codename ended again?

It gets confusing after a while. I'm sure another one picked up the same streams where the last ended.

We should call all these programs by their original codename.

[JaneyVee]

19. I'm all for both sides of this issue debating its necessity based on its merits and bringing it to a

vote on the floor. I don't see the nefariousness in metadata collection. If our Govt wanted to be nefarious to its citizens there's millions of other ways.

[Pholus]

21. Metadata is the best indication of who you are.

Loyalty is easily ranked by how many friends of friends you have who are questionable. Or worse, work for the media.

Leaders are people who communicate with many people and who can bridge social circles. Easily spotted and neutralized.

But I probably have a devious bent to you. I can imagine a lot of ways metadata can be used to generate a citizen loyalty rating.

And let's not even get into the amorphous definition of Quakers (Errr, Terrorists) as we talk about being safe from them.

[think]

22. 2006 Joe Biden agrees

[Pholus]

23. Bookmarked. Thanks for that link.

Funny how I heard echo's of President Obama's public statement in what President Bush said.

"We are not listening to your phone calls."

[railsback]

10. C'mon, Greenwald

You're going to have to come up with something earth-shattering to save face now, instead of more of these vague, fill in your own blanks (as long as its 'evil') documents. Let's see some solid numbers instead of this hyperbole. This nondescript shit could mean anything, or nothing at all.

[marions ghost]

46. "EvilOlive"

...as long as it's evil:

Today's article from The Guardian talking about the new evil software systems/programs being launched as we speak:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3110981

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Look on the bright side.

If I need an email, I can FOIA NSA!!! They have it somewhere in that small data center in Utah.

[think]

18. Or the one in San Antonio that's not on the books according to local newspaper there

Local offices of NSA kept off the books
By Nolan Hicks 8:45 AM

Over the past six years, the National Security Agency has quietly transformed the former Sony chip fabrication plant on the Northwest Side into a black-box hub of intelligence gathering and data storage.

~Snip~

Tax records also show it has built a roughly 94,000-square-foot data center at the site.

With the facilities in Georgia and Hawaii, as well as with other major construction projects, the NSA included the costs as line items in the Defense Department's budget. But it hasn't done so with the San Antonio location.

~Snip~

Corporate Office Properties Trust, a publicly traded company based in Maryland, owns the San Antonio facility. COPT leases it to the NSA.

Property tax records show it has grown by nearly 135,000 square feet, from nearly 498,000 square feet to almost 633,000. In 2008, the facility was worth $33.5 million; now, it's valued at more than $72 million.

Aid said he believed the function of the NSA's San Antonio building would be largely similar to the agency's operations in Georgia and Hawaii, which the agency has said cost $286 million and $358 million, respectively.

In a 2006 document related to a municipal bond sale, City Hall estimated the NSA's new investment in San Antonio could reach $300 million and add up to 1,500 new jobs.

~Snip~

Full article:
http://www.expressnews.com/news/military/article/Local-offices-of-NSA-kept-off-the-books-4603085.php

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Ooohhh fancy

Those are really teeny, nothing to be concerned about if you do not raise red flags citizen.

[Ms. Toad]

51. Doncha mean red diaper babies? n/t

[Catherina]

15. Rec'd with note that in December 2012 the #NSA launched a new program

in December 2012 the NSA launched a new program to analyze communications where one end was inside the US

Wham bam, I can't believe how much is coming out.

[Pholus]

16. I can't believe how passively people accept it.

Thanks for your references. You're much more on top of this than I.

[magellan]

24. Lots of people passively accepted Hitler

This is much less repugnant than the policies he pushed through to cheering crowds. It troubles me deeply that people are shrugging, but I can't say I'm surprised.

(And no, I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler. Read it again.)

[JoePhilly]

70. Ah ... Obama is Hitler ... one must usually go to a Tea Party rally to obtain

this level of "insightful" analysis.

[magellan]

71. You obviously didn't bother reading past the subject line

As I anticipated in my comment.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. LOL. Greenwald is getting desperate

Perhaps he's feeling some heat from the DOJ.

FISA court approved the collection, but the administration decided to terminate the program anyways which, BTW, began under the Bush administration.

So where's the scandal?

Greenwald has really turned into a hack which is sad because a few years ago he did some really great reporting on the US drone program in the middle east.

[Pholus]

27. Old intel programs never die. They just get better codenames... :)

Just like here.

Bushie's Information Awareness Office died too as a public travesty explicitly defunded by Congress.

At LEAST 75% of its initiatives live on with different codenames.

When you don't have to come clean, that's pretty easy to do.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. So the administration is lying when they say the program was killed?

Why doesn't Greenwald mention that in the article?

The administration lying about that could very well be scandalous.

BTW, what proof do you have that this specific program was never halted in 2011?

[Pholus]

33. Tedious. Please pause, take a deep breath, and read what I wrote.

I'll certainly take the administration's word that "Stellar Wind" as a program is dead. That of course was the point of the last post.

Your turn. Guarantee me that no other codenamed program exists that is functionally equivalent (to wit, collecting the metadata on email communications of US citizens in bulk).

Stake your reputation on your statement.

[Maedhros]

43. Where is the scandal?

The fact that the secret FISC, with no oversight or accountability, routinely and continually authorized all data collection requested by the NSA every 90 days, is scandalous.

I know it's out of vogue, but here is the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The fact that the NSA is asking the FISC for a warrant makes the Fourth Amendment relevant.

Whether the NSA has probable cause to collect data on millions of anonymous citizens is very much an open question, and a comprehensive explanation by the Administration is long overdue regarding why they believe they have probable cause to do this. Repeatedly citing the classified nature of the program is not sufficient cause to avoid giving an explanation.

A valid warrant must "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A blanket warrant issued every 90 days for the huge volume of records seized cannot by any stretch of the imagination meet this requirement.

If the program is indeed Constitutional and does not present a threat to democracy, then there is no harm explaining in detail exactly how the program functions. According to the people that created it, our government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed." We as citizens cannot consent to this program if we do not know how it works.

[randome]

26. It's still based on foreign communications. And it's metadata, not bulk collection of email.

According to a top-secret draft report by the NSA's inspector general – published for the first time today by the Guardian – the agency began "collection of bulk internet metadata" involving "communications with at least one communicant outside the United States or for which no communicant was known to be a citizen of the United States".

And I agree with what someone pointed out elsewhere: why doesn't the Guardian publish the documents instead of telling us their version of what the documents say? Like Snowden, they expect to be believed without furnishing evidence?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ProSense]

30. This is desperation

He's repackaging and conflating already reported claims to give the impression that there is something new here.

• Secret program launched by Bush continued 'until 2011'
• Fisa court renewed collection order every 90 days
• Current NSA programs still mine US internet metadata

The 90-day order was reported initially.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022958165

This from his current piece claims that the program ended, which would make the initial claim that it was ongoing false.

The documents indicate that under the program, launched in 2001, a federal judge sitting on the secret surveillance panel called the Fisa court would approve a bulk collection order for internet metadata "every 90 days". A senior administration official confirmed the program, stating that it ended in 2011.

Conflating the metadata program with Stellar Wind, Bush's illegal eavesdropping program, is curious.

Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

[randome]

34. I don't understand the Guardian hitching its wagon to Greenwald.

He is damaging their brand.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Denzil_DC]

62. Well, the Guardian's print arm's losing money hand over fist.

Its online arm is doing quite well, particularly in the US, and is no doubt where it sees its future. The last few weeks have amounted to a large number of hits, especially from the US - check out their comments sections.

The frustrating thing is that the Guardian has access to a number of shit-hot investigative journalists with a long and distinguished track record in dealing with whistleblowers and tech issues, and breaking stories that have stood up over time. They've been largely sidelined in the coverage of this story.

[WovenGems]

28. My appologies to NSA

for all the junk mail that hits my box. And given how many of us delete 20 e-mails for everyone we read you have a daunting task at hand. Good luck with that.

[limpyhobbler]

37. tip of the iceberg. nt

[Skip Intro]

61. No doubt.

[pnwmom]

38. So the program began in 2001 and was stopped halfway through Obama's first term.

Good for Obama for stopping it.

So why was Greenwald first reporting that it was still ongoing?

[Hissyspit]

65. "How the NSA is still harvesting your online data"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023110981#post26

[JoePhilly]

69. Because he knows few will actually read past the headline.

And to highlight the fact that Obama ended this program does not help generate sufficient outrage.

[sabrina 1]

40. Wait, so if I talk to say, Sid someone out there is collecting is watching us?

Wow, Sid better watch what he says!

[Historic NY]

42. Why would the reporter conveniently leave out Afghanistan......

According to a top-secret draft report by the NSA's inspector general – published for the first time today by the Guardian – the agency began "collection of bulk internet metadata" involving "communications with at least one communicant outside the United States or for which no communicant was known to be a citizen of the United States".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection

Could it be the collections of e-mails etc ended on or about May 2, 2011.

[grahamhgreen]

44. Must spy on all Americans - that is how paranoid we are!

[WillyT]

64. Kick !!!

[great white snark]

66. Greenwald appreciates your sheepish dissemination of his propaganda.

When Greenwald tells you to jump....

[WillyT]

67. THAT... Is Hysterical... But When It Comes To Sheep, You Guys Know Best...

Try being a patriot... instead of a partisan.

You'll thank yourself in the end.

[woo me with science]

68. K&R

[woo me with science]

72. Kick

[woo me with science]

73. kick