NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year

[BDKJMU]

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

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.

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

The Obama administration has provided almost no public information about the NSA’s compliance record. In June, after promising to explain the NSA’s record in “as transparent a way as we possibly can,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole described extensive safeguards and oversight that keep the agency in check. “Every now and then, there may be a mistake,” Cole said in congressional testimony.

The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.

In a statement in response to questions for this article, the NSA said it attempts to identify problems “at the earliest possible moment, implement mitigation measures wherever possible, and drive the numbers down.” The government was made aware of The Post’s intention to publish the documents that accompany this article online.

“We’re a human-run agency operating in a complex environment with a number of different regulatory regimes, so at times we find ourselves on the wrong side of the line,” a senior NSA official said in an interview, speaking with White House permission on the condition of anonymity."

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

Yet the fat man from NJ defends this...

[Ibanez]

Water is still wet


Sent from my iPhone

[CID1990]

Yawn

[Cap'n Cat]

Yawn

Agreed.

[BlueHen86]

Yawn

Agreed.

Not ready to yawn yet, need some bdk to supply additional boring posts.

[kalm]

Yeah yawn. Violations of the 4th amendment and the Patriot Act are soooooo boring. I mean I ain't go nothing to hide so why worry about it. Besides, Ivytalk, who's a real lawyer agrees with Holder, BO, and establishment conks on this one. I mean, if it's ok with the courts it must be constitutional.

But those asshole traitors Snowden and Manning need to be hanged...fer 'merica!

[Ivytalk]

If Congress granted the NSA "broad new powers" five years ago, it can take those powers away. Just requires the political will to do it. And Obama, who routinely bypasses Congress and relishes the power of the administrative state, isn't the one to take the lead on this.

[kalm]

If Congress granted the NSA "broad new powers" five years ago, it can take those powers away. Just requires the political will to do it. And Obama, who routinely bypasses Congress and relishes the power of the administrative state, isn't the one to take the lead on this.

1) It violates the 4th amendment

2) The establishment on both sides of congress will not willingly give up power even if it's unconstitutional.

3) Obama is douche. So is Barbara Boxer.

[houndawg]

Yet the fat man from NJ defends this...

BDCRYBBY.


It's just a goddamn piece of paper.

[CID1990]

If Congress granted the NSA "broad new powers" five years ago, it can take those powers away. Just requires the political will to do it. And Obama, who routinely bypasses Congress and relishes the power of the administrative state, isn't the one to take the lead on this.

1) It violates the 4th amendment

2) The establishment on both sides of congress will not willingly give up power even if it's unconstitutional.

3) Obama is douche. So is Barbara Boxer.

I don't disagree with this.

But it has got to get worse before the average Joe gets pissed about it, and makes his elected reps suffer some consequences.

Until then


Yawn

[Ivytalk]

If Congress granted the NSA "broad new powers" five years ago, it can take those powers away. Just requires the political will to do it. And Obama, who routinely bypasses Congress and relishes the power of the administrative state, isn't the one to take the lead on this.

1) It violates the 4th amendment

2) The establishment on both sides of congress will not willingly give up power even if it's unconstitutional.

3) Obama is douche. So is Barbara Boxer.

Actually, the First Amendment argument against the NSA may be stronger than your Fourth Amendment argument. But the point is that these young firebrands in Congress, if you can call them that, should get busy with legislation and dare their wussy colleagues not to vote for it.

That, and term limits.

[kalm]

1) It violates the 4th amendment

2) The establishment on both sides of congress will not willingly give up power even if it's unconstitutional.

3) Obama is douche. So is Barbara Boxer.

Actually, the First Amendment argument against the NSA may be stronger than your Fourth Amendment argument. But the point is that these young firebrands in Congress, if you can call them that, should get busy with legislation and dare their wussy colleagues not to vote for it.

That, and term limits.

There's nothing in the 4th amendment that supports what the NSA is doing. Zero, nada, zilch.

But I think I'm beginning to agree with term limits.

[Ivytalk]

Actually, the First Amendment argument against the NSA may be stronger than your Fourth Amendment argument. But the point is that these young firebrands in Congress, if you can call them that, should get busy with legislation and dare their wussy colleagues not to vote for it.

That, and term limits.

There's nothing in the 4th amendment that supports what the NSA is doing. Zero, nada, zilch.

But I think I'm beginning to agree with term limits.

You're too facile with your Fourth Amendment mantra. There are more open issues than you care to admit, including whose property "your" phone records are. Read Orin Kerr's July 17 post in The
Volokh Conspiracy entitled "Metadata, the NSA and the Fourth Amendment." The case law suggests no clear answer, some of it actually cuts the other way, and progressives don't bother to back up
their claim that it's a slam dunk.

[kalm]

There's nothing in the 4th amendment that supports what the NSA is doing. Zero, nada, zilch.

But I think I'm beginning to agree with term limits.

You're too facile with your Fourth Amendment mantra. There are more open issues than you care to admit, including whose property "your" phone records are. Read Orin Kerr's July 17 post in The
Volokh Conspiracy entitled "Metadata, the NSA and the Fourth Amendment." The case law suggests no clear answer, some of it actually cuts the other way, and progressives don't bother to back up
their claim that it's a slam dunk.

"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."

Put down the case law and apply some common sense man. "My phone records", my phone, and my emails are simply a modern version of my person, papers, and effects and Google is simply a post office. Arguing anything else and ignoring the plain english of the amendment is simply legal obfuscation. Quit being a lawyer...you lawyer...

(FTR, I lean toward this same argument with the 2nd amendment too)

[Ivytalk]

You're too facile with your Fourth Amendment mantra. There are more open issues than you care to admit, including whose property "your" phone records are. Read Orin Kerr's July 17 post in The
Volokh Conspiracy entitled "Metadata, the NSA and the Fourth Amendment." The case law suggests no clear answer, some of it actually cuts the other way, and progressives don't bother to back up
their claim that it's a slam dunk.

"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."

Put down the case law and apply some common sense man. "My phone records", my phone, and my emails are simply a modern version of my person, papers, and effects and Google is simply a post office. Arguing anything else and ignoring the plain english of the amendment is simply legal obfuscation. Quit being a lawyer...you lawyer...

(FTR, I lean toward this same argument with the 2nd amendment too)

I love it! You respect the "plain English of the amendment"! You've turned into the second coming of Robert Bork!

This will make its way to the SCOTUS before long. Then it will be a case of

[houndawg]

1) It violates the 4th amendment

2) The establishment on both sides of congress will not willingly give up power even if it's unconstitutional.

3) Obama is douche. So is Barbara Boxer.

Actually, the First Amendment argument against the NSA may be stronger than your Fourth Amendment argument.But the point is that these young firebrands in Congress, if you can call them that, should get busy with legislation and dare their wussy colleagues not to vote for it.

That, and term limits.

Oh please. You expect these people to get busy with legislation before they've made their millions off of sweetheart deals with the folks they're supposed to curb?