NSA Refuses To Deny Spying On Congress

[ravdin]

A little side story that didn't seem to get much attention (perhaps due to those mean duck guys) via WaPo:

"Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other elected officials?"

That's the question Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) put to the National Security Agency's chief in a bluntly worded letter Friday. It seems, however, that the agency cannot categorically say no.

Sanders didn't use the word "spy" lightly. He was careful to define his terms, indicating he meant the collection of phone records from personal as well as official telephones, "content from Web sites visited or e-mails sent," and data that companies collect but don't release to the public.

The NSA's response: "Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all U.S. persons", which means, as far as I can tell, precisely zero.

While in a way I'm glad to see that members of Congress are for once subject to the same treatment as the rest of us, I'm more than a little uncomfortable seeing that the system of checks and balances that's supposed to underpin a healthy democracy isn't even getting lip service anymore.

 

[ZouPrime]

Sanders didn't use the word "spy" lightly. He was careful to define his terms, indicating he meant the collection of phone records from personal as well as official telephones, "content from Web sites visited or e-mails sent," and data that companies collect but don't release to the public.

The NSA's response: "Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all U.S. persons", which means, as far as I can tell, precisely zero.

While in a way I'm glad to see that members of Congress are for once subject to the same treatment as the rest of us, I'm more than a little uncomfortable seeing that the system of checks and balances that's supposed to underpin a healthy democracy isn't even getting lip service anymore.

Using this definition of "spy", then of course the NSA can't deny it is "spying" on congress. The NSA records communication data in bulk - the chance that at least one conversation in these records includes at least one member of the congress are pretty high - and the NSA won't ever know it for sure until they try to identify every single person present in these bulk records, which would be a) an immense waste of time and resources and b) completely illegal.

Of course, this isn't a very useful definition of "spying". Are telcos spying on their customers because they record telephone metadata? Is Facebook spying on you because they records all your conversation?

 

[ravdin]

Using this definition of "spy", then of course the NSA can't deny it is "spying" on congress. The NSA records communication data in bulk - the chance that at least one conversation in these records includes at least one member of the congress are pretty high - and the NSA won't ever know it for sure until they try to identify every single person present in these bulk records, which would be a) an immense waste of time and resources and b) completely illegal.

Of course, this isn't a very useful definition of "spying". Are telcos spying on their customers because they record telephone metadata? Is Facebook spying on you because they records all your conversation?

Small difference with Facebook: we can choose not to let them spy on us.

 

[ZouPrime]

Small difference with Facebook: we can choose not to let them spy on us.

Amusingly enough, Facebook tracks you even if you don't have a account with them. And nothing stops you from not having any telephone conversation so that the NSA can't records you. But all this is beside the point of my post anyway.

 

[DavidJames]

Small difference with Facebook: we can choose not to let them spy on us.

Please reference where you can deny Facebook access to your data. I'm not talking about who they can share it with. I mean that Facebook cannot see it.

 

[Cain]

There'd be more outrage if they said members of Congress were somehow shielded from data collection. Congressional spying would be really bad if they used it to strong-arm representatives into approving ever-sprawling privacy intrusions, but I haven't heard of any evidence of that.

 

[Dissolution]

Including other elected officials in the question makes it rather broad, doesn't it?
The number appears to be over 500,000 people and that's just in the US, which isn't specified by the question.

 

[theprestige]

I'm more than a little uncomfortable seeing that the system of checks and balances that's supposed to underpin a healthy democracy isn't even getting lip service anymore.

What, exactly, do you think the the system of checks and balances supposed to do, here?

The system of checks and balances constrains the freedom of one branch with the authority of another. For example, the Executive is responsible for tasking the intelligence agencies, but the Legislature is responsible for funding them. In addition, the Legislature has the authority to compel the Executive, and the agencies, to describe and explain their actions to the Legislature's satisfaction. Finally, if the Legislature is unsatisfied with the actions of the Executive or the agencies, they have recourse to corrective measures.

In this story, we see the Legislature exercising its authority to demand answers from the NSA. Where's the failure of the system here?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Using this definition of "spy", then of course the NSA can't deny it is "spying" on congress. The NSA records communication data in bulk - the chance that at least one conversation in these records includes at least one member of the congress are pretty high - and the NSA won't ever know it for sure until they try to identify every single person present in these bulk records, which would be a) an immense waste of time and resources and b) completely illegal.

Of course, this isn't a very useful definition of "spying". Are telcos spying on their customers because they record telephone metadata? Is Facebook spying on you because they records all your conversation?

Again, this comes down to what is considered to be a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Telco companies have good reason to record the meta-data of their customers for purposes of providing the service (e.g for billing etc.) and this is well understood. This cannot be construed as 'spying'.

On the other hand, if a government agency is secretly and unconstitutionally collecting data on your movements and calls from your telco provider without your consent, that pretty much fits the definition of being spied upon.

 

[ZouPrime]

On the other hand, if a government agency is secretly and unconstitutionally collecting data on your movements and calls from your telco provider without your consent, that pretty much fits the definition of being spied upon.

Well, it certainly fits the definition provided, but I believe it's kind of misleading, at least in this context. Most people will completely ignore this carefully worded definition, and instead immediately imagine NSA employees scrutinizing telephone records in search of dirt regarding politicians (which is what "spying" means in the imagination of most people). That's completely different from what the NSA is accused of doing here.

The senator laid a little semantic trap, and the NSA didn't fall for it. In the end, it's just a stupid word game, and not one that I find very interesting.

 

[jj]

Not surprised. Nobody would believe them if they did deny it, and for what appears to be good reason, too.

 

[theprestige]

Not surprised. Nobody would believe them if they did deny it, and for what appears to be good reason, too.

Of course it's a good reason: Storing phone call metadata in bulk, from all the major mobile carriers, is obviously going to include members of Congress. The only way to avoid that would be to take steps to purposely filter them out. Which steps would cost far too much to be worth doing, for the meager benefit. It's not like the NSA is actively targeting members of Congress per se.

What the Congressman should have asked is, "how many times has the NSA requested permission to search the data for records of calls made by members of Congress, and how many times have those requests been approved by the court?" It's in the searching of the data, not the storing, that the "spying" actually happens.

 

[ZouPrime]

Of course it's a good reason: Storing phone call metadata in bulk, from all the major mobile carriers, is obviously going to include members of Congress. The only way to avoid that would be to take steps to purposely filter them out. Which steps would cost far too much to be worth doing, for the meager benefit. It's not like the NSA is actively targeting members of Congress per se.

What the Congressman should have asked is, "how many times has the NSA requested permission to search the data for records of calls made by members of Congress, and how many times have those requests been approved by the court?" It's in the searching of the data, not the storing, that the "spying" actually happens.

Exactly.

If I was cynical, I would say that the Congressman probably didn't want to ask this more precise question precisely because it would have been easier for the NSA to answer. By using a overly broad definition of "spying", he forced the NSA to answer "we don't know", which makes much better headlines.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Of course it's a good reason: Storing phone call metadata in bulk, from all the major mobile carriers, is obviously going to include members of Congress. The only way to avoid that would be to take steps to purposely filter them out. Which steps would cost far too much to be worth doing, for the meager benefit. It's not like the NSA is actively targeting members of Congress per se.

What the Congressman should have asked is, "how many times has the NSA requested permission to search the data for records of calls made by members of Congress, and how many times have those requests been approved by the court?" It's in the searching of the data, not the storing, that the "spying" actually happens.

I'm afraid I disagree with this view. Collection of information is where the line should be drawn, not whether or not anyone has viewed that information. You say 'storage', but I'm not aware that if you sign a contract with Verizon, that you agree that your meta-data will be collected by the NSA and stored in a government facility. If the Congressman had asked the question that you had suggested, it would have given tacit approval that the NSA should be seizing this information from Verizon et al, which is precisely the issue at stake.

Thee question is whether the NSA should be collecting this information on everyone, rather than using warrants to collect the information on persons relevant to an ongoing information.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Exactly.

If I was cynical, I would say that the Congressman probably didn't want to ask this more precise question precisely because it would have been easier for the NSA to answer. By using a overly broad definition of "spying", he forced the NSA to answer "we don't know", which makes much better headlines.

The Congressman didn't want to ask this question because it gives approval to the idea that seizing papers/information, but not looking at them, is somehow constitutional. Precisely the slippery slope that critics of NSA overreach are trying to guide us away from.

It seems to me that when it comes to significant private information, e.g. effects and papers, content of phone calls and emails, mailed correspondance and meta-data, you can either draw the line at 'seizure' (collecting, recording, storage) or 'analysis' (looking at) and it seems quite clear that the Constitution draws the line at the former, for good reasons.

At the moment, meta-data is out on its own, with some weird status whereby it is ok to collect it, but not to look at it. This is completely anomalous and as the program is virtually useless anyhow, it should be an easy decision to harmonize the standard at 'seizure', in this case. If the NSA need this data on a number associated with a terrorist, then they can get a warrant and then get the relevant info from the carrier.

 

[ZouPrime]

I'm afraid I disagree with this view. Collection of information is where the line should be drawn, not whether or not anyone has viewed that information. You say 'storage', but I'm not aware that if you sign a contract with Verizon, that you agree that your meta-data will be collected by the NSA and stored in a government facility. If the Congressman had asked the question that you had suggested, it would have given tacit approval that the NSA should be seizing this information from Verizon et al, which is precisely the issue at stake.

Why would it been given "tacit approval"? I read again the question suggested by theprestige, and I fail to see how asking this question would mean that the Congressman (Senator?) agree that the NSA should be collecting metadata or not. Those are separate issues.

If what the Congressman really wanted was to say that collecting metadata is wrong and shouldn't be allowed, then why ask a question to begin with? The NSA already acknowledged they are doing it.

 

[ZouPrime]

The NSA collects metadata regarding telephone communication in bulk. This means they just record everything, without knowing the identity of the participants in the vast majority of these conversations.

"Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other elected officials?" The NSA can't say no, because as stated above, they don't know the identity of the participants in the vast majority of these conversations.

"Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of the Supreme Court?" The NSA can't say no, because as stated above, they don't know the identity of the participants in the vast majority of these conversations.

"Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of the New York Yankees?" The NSA can't say no, because as stated above, they don't know the identity of the participants in the vast majority of these conversations.

"Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on grandma?" The NSA can't say no, because as stated above, they don't know the identity of the participants in the vast majority of these conversations.

How are these questions interesting? I don't know. Maybe we should ask the Congressman.

 

[theprestige]

The NSA collects metadata regarding telephone communication in bulk. This means they just record everything, without knowing the identity of the participants in the vast majority of these conversations.

Technically, they're not recording anything, in the sense of recording phone calls. The telcos are logging the calls, and forwarding the logs to the NSA for storage. The NSA then follows an (apparently broken) oversight process whenever they need to search the stored logs for records of calls involving certain phone numbers.

 

[ZouPrime]

Technically, they're not recording anything, in the sense of recording phone calls. The telcos are logging the calls, and forwarding the logs to the NSA for storage. The NSA then follows an (apparently broken) oversight process whenever they need to search the stored logs for records of calls involving certain phone numbers.

This was also my understanding.

 

[fuelair]

NSA Refuses To Deny Spying On Congress ....










Good!!! Make 'em sweat and worry!!!!!!!!!