

ST-09-0002 NSA/CSS OIG Draft about Stellar Wind (2009) [pdf] - rdl
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/717973/doc0171.pdf

======
aphyr
_Second, in March 2003, the IG advised General Hayden that he should report
violations of the Authorization to the President. In February of 2003, the OIG
learned of PSP incidents or violations that had not been reported to overseers
as required, because none had the clearance to see the report._

And you thought _your_ organizational problems were tough.

------
ozi
"(TS//SI//NF) General Hayden stated that he never asked for or read the OLC
legal opinion supporting the PSP. The Deputy GC stated that it was his
understanding that the [legal] opinion [supporting authorization] was not
shared with the NSA _because it was considered confidential legal advice to
the President._ "

So he didn't want to know it because "President says it's cool, and if it's
not, well that's his problem, not mine." Except when you have this level of
secrecy, it takes an extraordinary act like Snowden to shed any light on the
matter and bring about legitimate criticism. So many levels of negligence
here...

~~~
samstave
So, the NSA was known to tap, track and view Obama's comms in the past - but
at the same time they claim to not read some info because they are "respecting
the legal advice as confidential"?

Where does the crazy hypocrisy stop with these people. I think they are all
absolutely insane.

------
rdl
Technically this probably should be tagged as (2009). It's also technically a
(TOP SECRET/STLW/ORCON/NOFORN) document, so if you have a clearance, you
shouldn't be viewing it. (if you _don 't_ have a clearance, you also shouldn't
be viewing it, but that's someone else's problem...)

~~~
webwanderings
A publicly clickable link can only be clicked. Imagine if you consciously
don't want to click but your toddler nearby messes with your keyboard and
clicks the link. Do you then become suspicious due to no fault of your own?

~~~
rdl
I put the classification legend in the submission title, but the editor elves
deleted it.

------
lukecampbell
This is a very extreme leak, technical details of capabilities, names of
persons (and locations)... No bueno amigos, glad I don't deal with classified
documents, I'm sure their lives are becoming hell now.

------
chockablock
This post is basically a duplicate of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5952699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5952699)
,

since this document was released by the Guardian, and is discussed and linked
to by the article at: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-
mining-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-mining-
authorised-obama)

------
doctorstupid
The section titled "Evolution of NSA Partnerships with Private Sector" (p28)
is interesting.

~~~
rdl
I'm really interested in the names of the companies. Sad they used "COMPANY A"
instead of naming them -- given how classified the report was, I wonder why.

------
rdl
Thank you Scribd for caching this; the original seems to have gotten pulled.

