

Snowden: NSA snoops on U.S. phone calls without warrants - declan
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa-snoops-on-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

======
trebor
This was almost admitted to outright by the NSA:
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5886686](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5886686)

~~~
brown9-2
The sad thing about this intense focus on the NSA story by HN in the past 2
weeks is that the sensational headlines stay on the top of HN for days, but
when those headlines are later refuted it is not as widely seen.

[http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-
room/news/305855-hous...](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-
room/news/305855-house-dem-nsa-cant-listen-to-calls-without-warrants)

~~~
declan
Not "refuted." Nadler says he was reassured by the administration, but has
refused to say by whom, or whether the reassurance was legally binding. Here's
the transcript, so judge for yourself (remember warrants would only be
required for content, not metadata):
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/112961607570158342254/posts/SBkR...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/112961607570158342254/posts/SBkRcVwPbdT)

~~~
brown9-2
Isn't this second-to-last paragraph the nut of the issue though? It describes
how things work under the FAA:

 _Section 702 of the FAA says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney
general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the
secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization
requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed._

If what they are doing is according to Section 702, then isn't the outrage
what the law allows rather than what the NSA is doing according to it?

~~~
temp9251
Section 702 was written, and has been interpreted, to have very few
restrictions.

1) It bars the NSA from collecting data on people unless "reasonably believed
to be located outside the United States."[1] Data can be intentionally
collected on any communication that has at least one foreign recipient or
sender.[2] The wording of the warrants specifically contradict the fourth
amendment, but as long as the target is "reasonably believed" to be a
foreigner, it doesn't matter to the NSA.

2) The test of whether someone is located outside the US has been interpreted
as a keyword-based system indicating that it is at least 51% likely. [3]

3) The NSA does not define "collection" as actually obtaining the data or
metadata, but as a human analyst viewing the data.[4]

4) According to Snowden: "NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here
for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act
and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and
viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a
warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the
day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications." [5]

If they realize that it is actually an American, they have no obligation to
delete the communications and will continue to store it indefinitely.

The NSA has been written a blank check to do whatever they want, existing
checks and balances are simply insufficient. Whether that is due to their
interpretation only breaking the _spirit_ of the law (but not letter), or
whether this is unconstitutional, is up for debate.

[1] FAA 702.g.1.B
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ261/pdf/PLAW-110pub...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ261/pdf/PLAW-110publ261.pdf)

[2] FAA 702.b.4

[3] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-
intelligence...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-
mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-
program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_2.html)

[4] [https://www.eff.org/nsa-
spying/wordgames#collect](https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect)

[5] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-
snowden-n...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-
files-whistleblower)

~~~
tptacek
The administration told the Washington Post that they are in no way relying on
interpretations of the word "collection", and that if they have the data, they
have it, no matter whether or not analysts have looked at it.

~~~
jdp23
Although Clapper told Andrea Mitchell something different -- that he was using
the term 'collection' to mean actually looking at it.

~~~
eli
That's not how I understood it at all.

------
bloaf
I wonder what I would have done if I were in Snowden's shoes. I've seen
something that is personally troubling, ambiguously legal, and possibly abused
by analysts without oversight. That something is ostensibly the recording of
phone calls and other electronic communications without warrant. The abuses
could simply be employees viewing communications without instructions (e.g.
for voyeuristic purposes or personal gain.)

If those assumptions are correct, then I can't help but think that I would
have taken a few phone calls with me on my way out. A few mp3s featuring Dick
Cheney and his family would make quite a point if released now for example.

~~~
jonknee
> If those assumptions are correct, then I can't help but think that I would
> have taken a few phone calls with me on my way out. A few mp3s featuring
> Dick Cheney and his family would make quite a point if released now for
> example.

He obviously has more than he has shared (and has shared to the Guardian and
Washington Post more than we have been privy to). The fun thing is that the
Feds have a high certainty of what he has and can't say or even use it as
evidence lest they do the leaking for him.

~~~
bloaf
Yes, I wonder about that too. Greenwald seems to be very eager to tell us that
Snowden has more than has been released. The implication is that the rest of
the information is too dangerous to release.

Apart from the two immediate questions: "Does that information actually
exist?" and "Why is it too dangerous?" We must ask ourselves why Snowden isn't
forthcoming with some less sensitive proof to bolster his claims. It
presumably would have been possible for him to have foreseen the reluctance
news organizations had to publish the information. Why not have something more
along the lines of a proof-of-concept to dispel the doubt that comes with
incomplete information? Having a recording of some peoples' phone records
would be just that kind of proof (provided he couldn't have reasonably gotten
their records any other way.)

~~~
delackner
Revealing such a recording would enable the government to prosecute him for
"targeting" such information without a warrant. Of course he has bigger
worries than whether they try to tack on such a trumped up charge...

------
inzax
If I were Snowden and if I had that power. I would first release all this
information to the public. And then to hear what the 3 letters had to say. And
then, release emails for 1 month of each and every Senator and representative.
That in it self I believe would have caused the most change.

completely theoretical, but would have caused the most change for the better.

