
NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel - dombili
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents
======
ferdo
The worst part is here:

> Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found
> in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon
> recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the
> US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the
> executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and
> independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member
> and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to,
> the supreme court)".

The NSA is giving intel about officials in the US government to another
country, on the honor system.

Snowden and Manning are considered traitors for doing even less.

~~~
torbj0rn
The paragraph you cite is worded ambiguously, the Guardian is NOT reporting
that the intel the NSA is sharing with Israel is about officials in the US
government.

Here is the first half of the following paragraph:

>It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress
or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA,
nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such
communications.

Beware the sensationalism in this article. The only fact provided by the
Guardian in this article is that NSA shares surveillance data with Israel. It
is not known what kind of data is shared.

~~~
rosser
The fact that the agreement calls for Israel to "destroy upon recognition"
communications involving USG officials is an acknowledgement that it _might_
happen, which is, itself, an acknowledgement that it _will_ happen.

~~~
jljljl
Any smart information sharing agreement would cover contingencies like this.
Not because they know it _will_ happen, but because they know it _might_
happen.

Not making a statement on the information sharing, just pointing out that the
existence of a clause within an agreement does not mean the situations that
clause covers are going to happen. For example,the iTunes EULA prohibits the
software from being used to build weapons of mass destruction <
[http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-
services/itunes/appstore...](http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-
services/itunes/appstore/dev/stdeula/) >

~~~
bilbo0s
"_might_"

is unacceptable in this case.

If it "_might_" happen, then this particular sharing agreement should be
scrapped. When it comes to this sort of thing, we need to operate in an
environment of guarantees not one of assurances.

~~~
NegativeK
There are no guarantees. Ever. It's better to acknowledge that the best
intentioned (which this is, admittedly, not) processes can screw up and plan
for these screw ups.

It's why we have cops and a legal system instead of locking everyone in padded
rooms.

~~~
enraged_camel
The amount of apologism in comments like yours is stunning.

What do you mean, "there are no guarantees, ever"? The NSA employs some of the
brightest minds in America, and has billions of dollars of funding and (we are
just finding out) the influence and authority to do virtually anything.

There fucking _MUST_ be guarantees. If guarantees are not possible, then
information _MUST NOT BE SHARED._

~~~
NegativeK
You're putting words in my mouth.

If you design a system based on guarantees, it's going to be brittle. It will
fail, and it will be very unpleasant. If you design a system to handle
contingencies, like elected official's data getting through, it's going to be
more resilient. If you design a system that will handle contingencies and then
spending as much money as you can on preventing those contingencies from
needing to be used -- well, you're finally developing something useful.

Hell, the best guarantee a cryptographer can give you is a one-time pad, and
they'll tell you that the human factors involved will be just as bad (and
probably worse) than algorithms with weaknesses.

But, back to putting words in my mouth: this stuff shouldn't be shared because
spying on American citizens is unconstitutional and giving the data to allied
nations is backstabbing us in the name of national security -- not because
it's impossible to build a perfect system to protect elected officials.

------
aspensmonster
50 points, 3 hours ago, not on front page. Definitely nothing screwy going on
here. Regardless, here's the link to the memorandum:

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7854...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/785495/doc1.pdf)

My favorite part:

>1.d) This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights
and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a
legally binding instrument according to international law.

Hey Israel, we're totally against you violating the constitutional rights of
American citizens --to say nothing of the human rights of all people-- but
it's not like this is a "legally binding instrument" or anything. Just don't
be bad, m'kay?

M'kay.

~~~
clobber2
Why is it that some people are flagging these stories? The NSA surveillance
topic is highly relevant as it intersects with technology. What does plugging
ones ears and looking the other way solve?

Maybe if these people are so 'sick' of hearing about it they should do
something to stop it. Or is willful ignorance bliss?

~~~
dylangs1030
I agree with you that it's relevant to technical news, but I don't think it
has anything to do with "plugging ears" or "willful ignorance."

I don't flag them (it's pointless I think), but I think the people flagging
these stories are doing so because they're tired of hearing about it, and
because one interpretation of the HN Guidelines supports it.

~~~
jlgreco
Flagging to often will cause you to very quickly lose the ability to flag at
all (the 'flag' link is removed for you entirely). If people are flagging
heavily and are allowed to continue to do so, then it seems to me that HN is
in some form approving of their flags.

------
btilly
The shoe I'm still waiting for is whether the FBI is willing to use the sworn
affidavit of foreign intelligence people with access to American intelligence
as grounds for warrants issued under the 4th amendment.

In plain English, if another country tells us which Americans to go after, do
we issue warrants and actually go after them? I'd be willing to bet money that
we do, but nobody will want to admit to it.

~~~
superuser2
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-
intel...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-
laundering)

We already know they are using intelligence data to tip off police to invent
reasons to stop cars (i.e. 2mph speeding ticket) and find drugs.

This would be trickier for warrant affidavits because (I believe) those become
available to defense counsel during discovery. They could hide the identity of
a confidential informant from defense counsel, but I believe the judge is
entitled to verify the legitimacy of CIs and might do so if the defense
claimed that the probable cause came from the NSA.

Local LEOs have already been caught phoning in "anonymous tips" to
themselves/their teams to create probable cause for surveillance already
conducted. This was before and unrelated to the NSA revelations.

~~~
jlgreco
_" I believe the judge is entitled to verify the legitimacy of CIs and might
do so if the defense claimed that the probable cause came from the NSA."_

In the past at least, how likely is it that a judge would dig much deeper once
they got to _" and we were tipped off to this by sources from within a foreign
intelligence agency"_?

~~~
superuser2
Fruit of the poisonous tree. The legal standards for what can be presented in
court are higher than for what can be performed and use for counter-terrorism,
missing persons investigations, hostage rescue, and all sorts of
police/military/intelligence actions that aren't going to end up in a
courtroom.

Does anyone know the legal status of foreign intelligence agencies as far as
probable cause? I don't think it'd be considered valid probable cause.

------
chebucto
I may have missed it, but I'm still waiting to hear whether the assumption
about the 'five eyes' is true: whether the signals intelligence agencies of
the US, UK, Canada, Australia & NZ spy on each others' citizens, and share
that data with one another, in order to circumvent domestic spying
restrictions. That is, whether the NSA spies on Canadians and gives that
information to the Canadian government, while at the same time the CSE spies
on Americans and gives that information to the American government.

~~~
munin
If you read the laws, you will discover that intelligence agencies are
forbidden from asking anyone to do things that the agency itself may not do.
The people who wrote these laws did their best to think of these loopholes.

If you argue that they would break the law, then there is no reason for a
sharing agreement as the agency could just break the law and do things
themselves. So, this myth can probably be buried whatever you think about the
integrity of the agencies...

~~~
rbanffy
> are forbidden from asking anyone to do things that the agency itself may not
> do.

I believe there are many ways to do it without asking.

------
rickhanlonii
The most troubling truth of this for me is:

>Destroy upon recognition any communication contained in raw SIGINT provided
by NSA that is either to or from an official of the U.S. Government.
Government officials" include officials of the Executive Branch (including the
White House, Cabinet Departments. and independent agencies); the House of
Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the U.S. Federal Court
system (including, but not limited to. the Supreme Court). "Officials" include
civilian and military members and employees performing the official business
of these branches of govemment, and is independent of seniority or position.

>Process only for purposes unrelated to intelligence against the U.S any
communications contained in raw SIGINT provided by NSA that include references
to activities. policies, and views of U.S. officials.

It's not that Israel is supposed to destroy any data they get that is either
to or from a U.S. Government official that troubles me. It's both that they
_collect_ that data and that they pass it out blindly to other nations.

That is absolutely irresponsible.

~~~
kamjam
The most troubling truth of this for me is... well, all of it!

------
lifeisstillgood
Can I try to get this straight - Five Eyes countries all co-operate in
grabbing as much traffic and metadata globally as they possibly can. this raw
data is also shared with at least one favoured nation.

Analysed, filtered data can then be accessed in BigData style to gather a
digital picture of almost anyone globally, covering financial transactions,
phone, email and medical.

out of this comes (unsurprisingly) actionable information that covers not
terrorism but more common international and domestic crime (drug smuggling,
other organised crime)

however due to legal and political issues the information cannot be given
directly to law enforcement so it is provided via cut outs - departments in
FBI / DEA who get tip offs from "anonymous sources" and pass it on.

A similar legal niceitie is performed by say having Canada process raw data
about US officials and the passing on useful data to the NSA (thus no country
ever actually spies on its own people)

on top of this Israeli intelligence get raw data and probably join in the game
of deniable whispers.

I think that's about it so two things

1\. is there a wiki where we can all update / view what is know and provable?
if not who wants to help?

2\. is there any evidence they have gotten into VISA ? that might tip the
balance against this program publically

3\. WTF !?

~~~
nl
_is there any evidence they have gotten into VISA?_

By _VISA_ do you mean the credit card company "Visa"? If so, then yes _of
course_ they are there. Credit card purchasing records have been shared with
law enforcement for years, and that isn't some secret NSA program.

You may be unaware, but Visa shares purchasing information with companies like
Acxiom already[1] and has done for years.

Of course, you may be talking about some other "VISA".

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-
quie...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-quiet-giant-
of-consumer-database-marketing.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I was unaware of total raw feeds. I was shocked to find out they were in
SWIFT, and thought the shock would be wider to find they were in the credit
card / transaction processing networks world wide (which I shorthanded to
visa, afaik they run one big secure network for most of the card networks)

if visa simply hands over all raw data to companies already, and they just
feed it off to NSA in Utah then, I don't know I give up.

------
ferdo
BTW, thus far it seems that the Washington Post and USA Today are the only
American mainstream sources touching this story:

[http://www.google.com/#q=israel+nsa&tbm=nws&tbs=sbd:1](http://www.google.com/#q=israel+nsa&tbm=nws&tbs=sbd:1)

~~~
Aloisius
You know it takes more than an a few hours for the mainstream press to pick up
a story. Unless they can license the original article, they either have to
reference the original one and write a also-ran article or they have to call
sources themselves.

As of now, the LA times, Mother Jones and Salon have it. I imagine by
tomorrow, it'll hit physical papers.

~~~
ferdo
I've seen urgent stories hit the mainstream in minutes. The lack of urgency on
the part of the mainstream wrt this story is the disturbing part.

~~~
obvious1
But it is not an "urgent" story per se. Journalists have contacts of their
own. Newspapers have published prior information that they'll include in the
story. Some places value comprehension and coverage.

~~~
ferdo
> But it is not an "urgent" story per se.

It's urgent to a lot of Americans, judging by the non-mainstream legs this
story has.

~~~
threeseed
It's not urgent to a lot of Americans just you.

Will the news change depending on if it's reported today, tomorrow or next way
? No ? Then it's NOT urgent.

~~~
ferdo
> It's not urgent to a lot of Americans just you.

OT, but a good rule to follow in civil public discussion is avoid imputing
motive or desire on the part of the person you're conversing with.

IOW, avoid making it personal if you don't want to appear rude or uncivil.

------
sinak
I don't understand why stories like this are being flagged down.

This story has 55 points and is 3 hours ago and is on the second page, but a
story with 45 points from 7 hours ago is on the homepage.

~~~
skylan_q
Because it's America and anything that implicates Israel in any wrongdoing is
to be silenced.

------
devx
If you can assume the worst about dragnet surveillance - NSA has already done
it. That would be a pretty safe bet at this point.

~~~
loceng
As far as I know they haven't selected a portion of the population based on
certain beliefs and murdered them. Obviously an organization could attempt to
do this with public information, though I imagine the NSA knows where most
people are most of the time - and their home addresses, or where they will be,
etc.. Not meaning to jump into conspiracy, though this has happened in the
past.

~~~
malandrew
Well there are already clear examples of people being targeted for laptop
border searches in a premeditated fashion. i.e. I can't get a warrant for the
computer of citizen X, but I know s/he will be traveling outside the country
and coming back on date Y through airport Z. Since constitutional rights
aren't respected at borders, I can simply instruct airport Z to detain citizen
X, and seize their computer equipment and copy it. This isn't even just about
what happened in the UK with David Miranda. There is at least one well
documented case here in the US involving a guy named David House.

These actions are definitely a step along the slippery slope of legitimizing
other practices. Plus, it is entirely possible that our intelligence agencies
have already targeted some individuals very specifically for neutralization
somehow. We can only confirm that they have not done so through transparency
and oversight.

~~~
aspensmonster
>Through counter-intelligence, it should be possible to pinpoint potential
troublemakers and neutralize them.

------
forgotAgain
So what happens in the situations where Israel intelligence uses US supplied
information as a basis for killing an American citizen?

~~~
ars
Is there some reason you expect this to be a likely scenario?

Israel is pretty strongly focused on the Arab countries near it who are trying
to destroy it. Not too many American citizens in those countries, and almost
impossible for one to reach any kind of high position which would make them a
target.

~~~
guard-of-terra
There surely are american citizens that are Arabs and Israel might want to
reach some of them.

~~~
ars
To kill them? Seems far fetched to me.

They'd want to recruit them - or maybe not, since an American Arab would never
be trusted by other Arabs.

An American Arab would never be trusted enough to gain any useful information,
so would not be of interest to Israel (not to recruit, not to kill).

~~~
nandemo
Why can't an Arab American make it? This Egyptian-born Israeli Jew did it.

> He is best known for his espionage work in 1961 - 1965 in Syria, where he
> developed close relationships with the political and military hierarchy and
> became the Chief Adviser to the Minister of Defense.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen)

~~~
mpyne
In fairness to the parent, stories like the one you posted are exactly the
reason such people wouldn't be as trusted in 2013.

------
ArtDev
>In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to
wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".

This is shocking. If I were a member of Congress I would be pissed! Where is
the outrage!!

~~~
einhverfr
We now know why the DoD is blocking the Guardian on work computers. Get high
ranking DoD intel folks reading a piece like this and it's going to be a
shitstorm.

I think this is actually one of the few revelations so far which is so
previously unthinkable that it has the potential to isolate the NSA from the
rest of the USG.

------
narrator
Oh good! We finally have a candidate for someone that the NSA considers to not
be "the enemy".

~~~
hga
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard)

~~~
ihsw
Can't forget Operation Opera[1], it seems especially relevant (prescient?)
considering the speculation of air strikes on Syria.

We may never see that kind of Israeli-Iranian cooperation ever again. It shows
how much can change in 30 years.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera)

------
ianstallings
My main concern is that they will use this data to target people who are pro-
Palestine, or just plain anti-Israel, in America and subject them to scrutiny
or worse. It makes you wonder what they give us in return. .

~~~
icecreampain
A few more Hollywood movies to keep y'all quiet.

------
richardlblair
Just when you this shit is bad, it gets worse. I don't even know what to say
anymore.

------
frank_boyd
Another day, another WTF.

------
yetanotherphd
If this turns out to be true, then it's no big deal since we shouldn't be
surprised that agencies share intelligence.

If it turns out to be false, then it's anti-semitic to even think that Israel
would engage in such a heinous act.

------
codex
This makes sense. If they had the technical capability to filter out
inadvertent collection of data on US citizens, they would already have
filtered it. Therefore, any data shared with Israel may contain data they were
unable to filter out. QED.

~~~
mpyne
While true, I'd certainly be interested in knowing what types of data are
being shared, and why the filter isn't a whitelist instead of being a
blacklist.

Although I doubt Glenn would deign to leak any details that made any such data
sharing appear more innocuous (i.e. the existence of a good reason for
intelligence agency cooperation here, which may very well exist).

------
cincinnatus
Treason.

~~~
einhverfr
Not treason but certainly espionage.

------
chj
Is Israel also sharing its raw intelligence with US? If so, it's a DEAL
between two countries. What's the big deal?

~~~
kbart
If two criminals share your stolen property, does it make it right?

------
ddevelop
How come this story is being buried below older ones with less comments and
less points? There seems to be a concerted effort to suppress this.

~~~
DanBC
Some people think the story belongs here and they upvote it.

Other people think the story doesn't belong here and they flag it.

The site has some mechanisms for ageing stories.

------
venomsnake
I really like the way Glenn is moving the story. Every new punch is
unexpected. And gives enough rope to the Administration to hang themselves.

Can by these deals the NSA whitewash intelligence? If something has come from
outside sources they can use it.

~~~
slurry
Normally I can't stand Greenwald because even though he's usually right imho,
he has to drama everything up so hard and force everything into a simplistic
moral narrative that it's usually not even worth reading him.

But in this case, deciding when to strategically leak things, a little
theatricality goes a long way, and a metric ton of theatricality goes even
longer. And the machine for spinning and glossing over this stuff is so quick
and vast that a handy cheap morality play might be all that stands between
awareness and total effective oblivion.

So, thank FSM for Glenn Greenwald being insufferably obnoxious.

~~~
ankitml
Apart from attacking the author personally, do you have any stronger argument.
Usually stronger argument focuses on the content of article shared.

~~~
slurry
Shorter me: "I think Greenwald is annoying but he's doing a good job with
this."

Not sure why you'd fix in on "Greenwald is annoying".

------
tsotha
Why single out Israel? Why would anyone think there aren't dozens of countries
with the same agreement?

~~~
jlgreco
Assuming they have evidence of a similar agreements with other countries, it
makes perfect strategic sense to lead off with Israel.

If you lead off with, say, Belgium, you are going to encounter a large amount
of _" eh, not particularly concerning."_ However leading off with a country
infamous for (correctly or otherwise, it does not matter) extraordinary
rendition, assassinations, and human right abuses...

~~~
ars
Israel's enemies are for the most part the same as the US's.

So "eh, not particularly concerning" is what you would say about _Israel_.
With Belgium I'd say exactly the opposite - this is very concerning, why is
the NSA sharing data with a county with few enemies in common.

Or in other words you have your argument exactly backward.

~~~
jlgreco
Whether or not you _agree_ that involvement with Israel is concerning, surely
you _understand_ why many other people may think that. You'd have to be living
under a rock to not understand that US/Israel relations are a hot-button
issue.

There isn't a productive conversation to be had in discussing the merits of
such a concern. The issue is too toxic, so I am being intentionally neutral on
this. I'm presenting the point of view, not endorsing or disputing it. Since
that point of view exists and is widespread, it makes since to take advantage
of it.

~~~
ars
It's actually only a very small minority that is concerned.

The vast majority and Americans are fully supportive of America's relationship
with Israel.

> and is widespread

It's actually not widespread. Well I guess it is with a certain minority, and
if you only read stuff from there you'll get the impression that it's more
common than it is.

~~~
jlgreco
> _It 's actually only a very small minority that is concerned._

Debatable ( _and keep in mind that Americans themselves are a minority here_
), but not an interesting debate. What is undeniable is that is an an issue
that gets eyeballs, and an issue that people are vocal about.

I think you are still mixing your "understand" and "agree" signals. I am
talking about a sort of realpoltik attitude towards journalism. The _merits_
of the US/Israel relationship do not matter here, what matters is how using
_this_ example drives the story.

------
SODaniel
I'm so tired of this crap I'm not even engaging in the debate anymore.

~~~
thex86
Thanks. Given your comment, I doubt you would have anything useful to
contribute to this.

