Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[Ed Anger]

America's worst Congressman

Oh, I can think of much worse.

[The Minsky Moment]

God bless the ACLU

You are a complicated guy Sheilbh

It's not that complicated.  One can think that the government may be acting reasonably and yet still welcome a lawsuit that will rigorously test that assumption.  It also can only be a good thing to have a properly constitued and independent Article III court review procedures and actions that to date have only been passed on by a limited, Article I tribunal whose track record raises questions.

One can trust, and yet still want to verify. 

[Valmy]

It's not that complicated.  One can think that the government may be acting reasonably and yet still welcome a lawsuit that will rigorously test that assumption.  It also can only be a good thing to have a properly constitued and independent Article III court review procedures and actions that to date have only been passed on by a limited, Article I tribunal whose track record raises questions.

One can trust, and yet still want to verify. 

Well then there is no material difference between those who trust and those who do not.  All I want is a debate and discussion on these policies and lawsuits are key to that.  So there is no debate, these leaks are good because they spawned the lawsuits everybody wants.

[Sheilbh]

It's not that complicated.  One can think that the government may be acting reasonably and yet still welcome a lawsuit that will rigorously test that assumption.  It also can only be a good thing to have a properly constitued and independent Article III court review procedures and actions that to date have only been passed on by a limited, Article I tribunal whose track record raises questions.

One can trust, and yet still want to verify.

Exactly. I often disagree with the ACLU (and their UK version) but I'm really glad they're there to do this sort of thing. And I admire their consistency and their principles. Same for all sorts of pressure groups that I may not agree with but I think their presence and perspective in a debate is always worth having.

[Berkut]

I saw it.

I think Wyden is doing a great job. I like that guy.

I think the intelligence guys are doing their job as well though. They are there in a public forum, and what they say has real practical security impacts.

He was asked if they collect data about Americans, he said they did not. Is that entirely true? Well, no. Is it sepcifcally false? Not exactly.

They don't collect data about Americans, they collect data about activities that Americans engage in. Is that a oh so clever evasion? Yes.

But it is not an unimportant distinction. Collecting aggregate meta data is in fact very different from collecting specific information. There is a difference between tracking that a call is made, and listening in on the call.

Now, I don't think that gets us out of the ethical problem however - the reality is that modern technology means that we can do things with the collection of otherwise clearly public meta-data that were not possible before. And I think that needs to be addressed. I think what the US intelligence community is doing is wrong - not that collection per se, but rather trying to insist that the technology change that allows the collection of data that was always possible, but not useful, in a fashion that makes it actually very useful (for good or bad) does not represent any kind of change at all, and can be governed under existing rules, which effectively just means they can do whatever they want with that aggregation of meta data.

This is exactly the same issue as those police cameras that can be mounted on police cars and capture thousands of license plates an hour, and then store that data. This isn't "new" information, the police could always note down that your car drove by them before. But before, that information was nearly useless, because they could never collect and store enough of it to be meaningful. Now, you could mount these cameras on several police cars, collect all the data, sort and organize it, and suddenly this is extremely useful (even dangerous) information. Nothing fundamental has changed, but in fact the *practical* effect has created a new problem.

These are problems we must look at and come to decisions about how they should be handled. And that should not happen behind closed doors by FISA courts and the intelligence community. Because I think in that case, their is inadequate representation of the people and their rights at that table.

[Valmy]

I think Wyden is doing a great job. I like that guy.

Yeah he is the man.  Pity Texas would never elect a guy like that.

[grumbler]

Eh read about it and see what you think.  The problem is he lied to Congress which is, you know, illegal.  Evading questions is not, but answering 'No' when the answer is 'yes' is not evading.

But his statement doesn't become a lie just because you claim that it is a lie.

The NSA data collection effort is not aimed at Americans.  It "unwittingly" does collect data on Americans, but they are not the target of the collection.

The question was a stupid one, unclear and repetitive.  Clapper (his name rings a bell) gave, as he said, a not-untruthful answer to the stupid question.  He should have (given that he knew the question ahead of time), re-worded it so that he could honestly answer it, but he is also a political animal and so played the same weasel game as Wyden did when he asked it.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on the whole medical privacy thing, it reminded me that Eric Schmidt was recently speaking at the Hay Literary Festival. He asked the audience how they'd feel about a pill that sends information about our bodies over wi-fi to computers. The audience grumbled a bit and he said 'too late, it's already being licensed'.

That's part of the problem with technology moving as it is - I believe a lot of laws on intercepting communications date from the radio era, which is another. It's the point Benedict Brogan made in the Telegraph, that actually the worry isn't that the future's 1984, but that it's Brazil. Everyone, especially governments, swimming in far too much information to actually make any sense of it. I think there's lots of opportunities for people, businesses and government's to make good use of all of this ever-increasing data that's around, but I don't think that's inevitable.

I mean even if I were a terrorist and the NSA pulled up my internet records and my dental files and my credit card purchases - my thousands of posts here, the tweets and the Facebook interactions, the hours spent on Steam - I'm not sure how quickly or effectively they could really make sense of all of that. We're just everywhere now

[Berkut]

Yeah Shelf, but here is the thing.

They know that - and they aren't sitting back saying "Golly, there is just so much data we can't make heads or tails of it!"

Instead they are collecting the data, storing it, and saying "Damn, that is a lot of data. However, we have some ridiculously smart people working for us. I bet we can come up with all kinds of really great ways we can use that data...." and they are doing exactly that. They are spending billions creating the infrastructre, experience, and expertise to figure out how to use all that data.

That is not a bad thing - hell, it is their job, and I am damn glad we have an NSA to do stuff like that. However...they are a government agency, and while I appreciate that they have a mission and are working towards fulfilling that mission, that doesn't mean that they get a free pass to do whatever they like, because all this technology is new and the ramifications of its use are still pretty hard to really understand.

I still don't see any clear indication that the overall system is broken. NSA and NSA-like people should be doing everything they can to protect our interests. And Congress should be doing everything THEY can to enable that, while at the same time representing OUR interests, and that includes interests that go beyond just security.

The trick here is how to reconcile those two in a world where even what we are capable of doing is a matter of classification and security. It is hard enough to balance the needs of security and liberty when the competing intersts are well known and understood. Here the competing interests are often classified, and the capabilities and threats as well.

[Valmy]

But his statement doesn't become a lie just because you claim that it is a lie.

I claim it is a lie because if I said what he said knowing what he knew I would consider I had just said a lie.  Now I concede by some twisty tortured lawyer-y logic it may not technically be one in some bizarro-world way.

The NSA data collection effort is not aimed at Americans.  It "unwittingly" does collect data on Americans, but they are not the target of the collection.

Huh?  Um of course it is aimed at Americans.  Specifically Americans who might be commiting crimes the NSA is concerned with.

[Valmy]

I still don't see any clear indication that the overall system is broken. NSA and NSA-like people should be doing everything they can to protect our interests. And Congress should be doing everything THEY can to enable that, while at the same time representing OUR interests, and that includes interests that go beyond just security.

The trick here is how to reconcile those two in a world where even what we are capable of doing is a matter of classification and security. It is hard enough to balance the needs of security and liberty when the competing intersts are well known and understood. Here the competing interests are often classified, and the capabilities and threats as well.

The fact that to get this important information to the public requires people to break security clearance sort of suggests the system needs to be reformed.  Which you address in the second paragraph.  In any case only a few nutjobs are demanding we storm the Bastille here, the information is now known and off we go.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's the point Benedict Brogan made in the Telegraph, that actually the worry isn't that the future's 1984, but that it's Brazil. Everyone, especially governments, swimming in far too much information to actually make any sense of it. I think there's lots of opportunities for people, businesses and government's to make good use of all of this ever-increasing data that's around, but I don't think that's inevitable.

"Big Data" -- the development and deployment of tools to analyze and make sense of vast compiliations of data is The Big Thing in the tech sector right now.  There is enormous attention and investment being made by the most powerful and sophisticated governments and companies, and significant progress has already been made.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah Shelf, but here is the thing.

They know that - and they aren't sitting back saying "Golly, there is just so much data we can't make heads or tails of it!"

Instead they are collecting the data, storing it, and saying "Damn, that is a lot of data. However, we have some ridiculously smart people working for us. I bet we can come up with all kinds of really great ways we can use that data...." and they are doing exactly that. They are spending billions creating the infrastructre, experience, and expertise to figure out how to use all that data.

That is not a bad thing - hell, it is their job, and I am damn glad we have an NSA to do stuff like that. However...they are a government agency, and while I appreciate that they have a mission and are working towards fulfilling that mission, that doesn't mean that they get a free pass to do whatever they like, because all this technology is new and the ramifications of its use are still pretty hard to really understand.

I still don't see any clear indication that the overall system is broken. NSA and NSA-like people should be doing everything they can to protect our interests. And Congress should be doing everything THEY can to enable that, while at the same time representing OUR interests, and that includes interests that go beyond just security.

The trick here is how to reconcile those two in a world where even what we are capable of doing is a matter of classification and security. It is hard enough to balance the needs of security and liberty when the competing intersts are well known and understood. Here the competing interests are often classified, and the capabilities and threats as well.

Absolutely.

What I've read is that a lot of companies are actually struggling to use the information they're developing about customers because there's so much of it and I imagine it's the same for the government now. I think worrying overly about the amount of data that's out there is really closing the stable door when the horse has already bolted. We're at the stage where, as Joan says, a half-decent private investigatory could find out a great deal about each of us and that's because we've let that happen because the internet is far more convenient.

I always used to think it odd when I was abroad (though I believe it's the same in the UK) that you had to give our details to the hotel you were staying in. But now most of us do that, or use a product that already has them, on a daily basis. As I say the challenge for everyone now is to make sense of it all and to be able to use it to make money or to do government things. Brogan mentions that, for example, the government used Google information on searches for flu to pattern the course of the disease and any epidemics in specific areas.

My own view is that in the UK we've actually probably got better legislative and judicial oversight now than at any point in our recent history. The intelligence services are now on a statutory basis and are overseen by Parliament and the judiciary have the ECHR which can be of some use, but those are both recent developments. I think the best solution is what seems to be happening in the US - with some queries over these FISA courts - that you have legislative and judicial oversight.

One of the problems with that is that, certainly in the UK, I can' think of a time when institutions have been so mistrusted and so that sort of institutional oversight may not be acceptable to the public.

The Guardian published an article by a former head of GCHQ and I, more or less, entirely agree with what he's suggested especially that it would be useful to have some ethical guidelines for intelligence in this area:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/11/make-surveillance-ethical-and-effective

[Sheilbh]

The fact that to get this important information to the public requires people to break security clearance sort of suggests the system needs to be reformed.  Which you address in the second paragraph.  In any case only a few nutjobs are demanding we storm the Bastille here, the information is now known and off we go.

Yeah. As I say I still don't really know why this had to be secret and I agree with the British legal blogger I quoted here, from a government perspective I think dull bureaucratic releases of information is often better than secrecy and codenames like 'PRISM' and 'Boundless Informant'

On the other hand I think the fact that Snowden had clearance and apparently nearly a million people do is, in itself, scandalous.

"Big Data" -- the development and deployment of tools to analyze and make sense of vast compiliations of data is The Big Thing in the tech sector right now.  There is enormous attention and investment being made by the most powerful and sophisticated governments and companies, and significant progress has already been made.

Yeah, I've read a couple of articles about it and the impression I got was that they still didn't really know where to start. The easy bits have been done but there's a lot of money to be made if you can make it more useful and accurate.

And I hate the phrase 'big data'

[Iormlund]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs

His very first answer is a lie. And it goes from there.

Everything he says seems right. As I say, maybe economical with the truth, but he's not lying.

does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

No, Sir.

Oh yeah, he's being economical with the truth, that's for sure.