WAPO: NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds

[dkf]

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

The documents, provided earlier this summer to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, include a level of detail and analysis that is not routinely shared with Congress or the special court that oversees surveillance. In one of the documents, agency personnel are instructed to remove details and substitute more generic language in reports to the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

In one instance, the NSA decided that it need not report the unintended surveillance of Americans. A notable example in 2008 was the interception of a “large number” of calls placed from Washington when a programming error confused the U.S. area code 202 for 20, the international dialing code for Egypt, according to a “quality assurance” review that was not distributed to the NSA’s oversight staff.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

[Thinkingabout]

1. Wow, wonder if some of "unintended" surveillance was committed by Snowden since he could even

Collect information from the WH.

[dkf]

2. Lol so everything is good, just Snowden violations?

You wish.

[Thinkingabout]

9. You need to read the post again and then reply.

[rhett o rick]

5. You only show your desperation with comments like that. If you want to chose to side

with Gen Clapper, just say so.

[Thinkingabout]

10. I am not desperate so it must cause desperation for you. Again you are on your merry-go-round,

you respond to post and twist in your own mind what you would like for others to say. Is desperation causing you a problem?

[rhett o rick]

12. The OP was about the NSA and your comment was about Snowden. Those that

are defending the NSA and status quo try to use Snowden to change the conversation. But it's becoming harder and harder, therefore the desperation.

I am not desperate, but determined to see that the NSA works for us and not Booz-Allen/The Carlyle Group.

[Thinkingabout]

14. Are you saying Snowden could not have been part of the 39% who did not follow standard operating

procedure? If you are interested in seeing NSA works then operators who does not follow standard operating procedures becomes part of the audit numbers. If he has stated truthfully he had the ability to listen to any call then he probably used it at least one time to see if it worked. It is operators who do not follow standard operating procedure which is violating. The FBI has the ability to find all key strokes so this may result in charges brought against other operators.

[rhett o rick]

15. Whether he was truthful or not, whether he inadvertently surveilled or not have

nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The Booz-Allen/NSA needs to be investigated (and not by themselves) and honest oversight established. Do you agree or not?

[Thinkingabout]

16. If is not important that he may be a part of this number who did not follow standard operating

procedures then it not important anyone did. Apparently if there has been an audit there has been investigation. After investigation then charges should result and all guilty should be charged.

[rhett o rick]

17. Let me guess your point. Because Snowden might have been involved in the

inadvertent surveillance, you want to make sure he is punished if others are.

I am saying again, at this point, what Snowden did or didnt do is being used as a distraction to take attention away from the main issue. Is Booz-Allen/NSA violating our Constitution. Please try to maintain perspective.

If we can get an honest investigation then we can discuss what's to be done. But it will be a whitewash. The Powers To Be will never give up their spy programs.

[Thinkingabout]

19. Is it Booz-Allen/NSA violating our Constitution or is it workers violating the Constitution.

When workers violate the Constitution then it is not the company violating as much as it is employees. As part of a honest investigation violations will be determined and actions should be taken. No, the powers to be will never give up their spy programs, if this is the tree you choose to bark upon, then you will be barking for a long time.

[rhett o rick]

22. Do I hear you saying that Constitutional violation responsibility goes no higher than the

worker? You must be in the military. No one above Pfc Manning is responsible. The buck stops at the Pfc level.

You do have a point of sorts. The tree I choose to bark upon is the tree of Constitutional freedoms and liberties. And the Powers To Be are mighty and powerful, and my efforts might be futile. No, I lost it, if you had a point, unless you mean I shouldnt waste my time fighting for Constitutional freedoms and liberty. But that's not what you mean, is it?

[Thinkingabout]

24. In the subject of the original post of audits speaks of operator errors, who are the operators, this

would be the individuals, those who did not follow standard operating procedures, this would be the individuals.

As far as you spending your time fighting for the Constitutional freedoms and liberties, have at it, when you are fighting for these freedoms and liberties it needs to follow the Constitution and not a version which is used in many post, if there is a warrant to collect data then it follows the Constitution.

[rhett o rick]

25. If I was running a company, I wouldnt let my workers commit the "operator errors" that you

are referring to. As I mentioned before, the higher levels have responsibility to ensure their employees are obeying the rules and laws.

" if there is a warrant to collect data then it follows the Constitution." If only life were so easy.

First of all it appears that Booz-Allen has "interpreted" that for a lot of data, warrants are not required per the Constitution. To be clear, this is Booz-Allen/NSA making this "interpretation" of the Constitution and not the SCOTUS.

And we've seen evidence that warrants have been issued that are in fact "warrants" but do not contain the restrictions specified in the Constitution. A warrant that says that Booz-Allen can gather any data, from anyone, forever (including retroactive) is in fact a warrant, but not a legal warrant. "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."

And even if legal warrants are issued, they are worthless unless they are enforced and the FISA courts have admitted they do not enforce the warrants. No one makes sure that Booz-Allen/NSA are obeying the warrants or the law.

[Thinkingabout]

26. It is impossible to keep workers from making errors, if you have ever had a typo then you have made

An error. There was a Code of Ethics but some workers violated this also. Perhaps we have a different understanding of the Constitution, to me a warrant is a warrant.

[rhett o rick]

28. I agree that typos are errors and it's hard to eliminate all errors. However, if a large number of

my employees are making errors on a continuous basis, I would change something. Unless I dont care about the errors.

Good grief. I wrote what the Constitution says about the warrant. The Constitution says that warrants SHALL NOT BE ISSUED unless they meet strict requirements. Therefore, a warrant is not a warrant.

By the way, have you seen this thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3472872

“The executive branch has now confirmed that the 'rules, regulations and court-imposed standards for protecting the privacy of Americans' have been violated thousands of times each year."

Every day we see a little bit more of the iceberg while some here are still denying that an iceberg even exists.

[Thinkingabout]

29. Do you know if warrants have been issued without meeting strict requirements? No, you do not.

I don't know if they are being issued while meeting strict requirements but I do know there has been warrants, again a warrant is a warrant.

[rhett o rick]

30. There is still a lot that neither you nor I know. We have seen at least one

illegal warrant. Illegal warrants are a violation of the FISA law as well as the Constitution. Do you agree we need to investigate and see if they are getting legal warrants?

[Thinkingabout]

31. Did you know there are Congressional committees which receive reports ?

I do not think this is a subject matter for a public hearing, it would not be a good practice to hold open hearings on national security matters. I also think leaks should be investigated to determine who and where those leaks occurred but no open hearings when it comes to national security.

[grasswire]

3. that "unintended surveillance" example = a limited hangout.

God, we've seen this so many times from TPTB and especially during the Bush administration. It's a limited hangout.

[dkf]

4. Limited hangout - definition...

A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details.

It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.

A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

Looks about right.

[DirkGently]

7. "Oh yes, that's a rabbit hole after all. No need to dig

any deeper than, eh?"

Been thinking that since the speech.

[grasswire]

8. example: Bush's famous "16 words".

Rove is a master at the technique.

[ljm2002]

6. 'according to a “quality assurance” review'...

...'that was not distributed to the NSA’s oversight staff.'

[Wilms]

11. ^

[rhett o rick]

13. Unintended surveillance is like unintended death of those standing near a suspect. nm

[WillyT]

18. K & R !!!

[woo me with science]

20. K&R

[Logical]

21. Blue links to dozens of 2 week old stories are about to make an appearance! n-t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Kinda like a burgler saying that he was after your jewels and "inadvertently" picked up your wallet.

[Catherina]

27. When this thing blows, it's going to blow big. Wow. n/t

[Logical]

32. Kick!