
Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants - remx
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-nsa-routinely-monitors-americans-communications-without-warrants/
======
grandalf
While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to
date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that
the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the
presence or absence of a FISA warrant.

The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the
detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not
focused on the core issue.

It would be _nice_ if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants,
but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants,
> but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case

You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans?

If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more
water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like,
"Obama continued policy begun by previous administrations to enable spying to
protect national security.". It's the primary function of the NSA.

~~~
mason240
It's extremely disingenuous to characterize his role as "continued policy
begun by previous administration" when his Vice President wrote the core
legislation of the Patriot Act, he was actively working to expand those
policies for 8 years, and one of his very last acts was to issue an EO further
entrenching them.

~~~
optimuspaul
Citations needed.

~~~
bendbro
Here's some literature on the Omnibus, Mr. Optimus.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995)

[https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-
tech-v...](https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting-
record/)

------
exabrial
My opinion on hn was unpopular when I spoke out against Apple during the San
Bernardino affair, because the FBI seemed to have the proper DOJ signoff and I
think the motivation was obvious.

However this is unacceptable. We are a society of laws, and one of them is due
process. Spying likely started during the Bush years, and Obama somehow
escaped scrutiny for continuing the program (even with Snowden leaks).
Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration, even if
merely because the media seems far less tolerant of his transgressions.

~~~
nerdponx
Haven't we been spying on our own citizens since WWII? Or at least since J
Edgar Hoover and thr McCarthy era?

~~~
datatan
McCarthy didn't spy on anyone. He was a Senator not an intel agent.
Additionally, McCarthy has been proven right. His estimate was that there were
around 20 Soviet agents that had infiltrated the US government at the highest
levels. Once the USSR fell and their documents became public it was proven
they had well over 200. McCarthy was right but people still tarnish his name
out of spite.

Hoover was an SOB far worse than McCarthy ever could have been but is still
revered by many in the intel services. His name still adorns the FBI HQ
building and other than accusations of cross dressing, no ones dug in to truly
uncover the evil things that man did.

~~~
wfo
McCarthy's name isn't being tarnished out of spite. It's because he started a
disgusting witch hunt with blacklists, demagoguery, etc to hunt down anyone
who committed thoughtcrime (i.e. communist sympathy) that ruined the lives of
many, many innocent people and turned the country down a very dark path.

The fact that there were soviet agents in the government is mostly tangential.
It was because he went around saying there's a secret list of enemies, and
that anyone who is left of center is probably one of them, that he was so
horrible. It was because he made disgusting personal attacks and aired the
dirty laundry of anyone who crossed him. It was because of his deep hatred for
homosexuals and anyone who wasn't right wing.

He was one of the more vile characters in US history. J. Edgar Hoover was much
worse, I'll concede; Hoover was actually a traitor, the worst in US history,
and should have been jailed or executed. But McCarthy deserves every bit of
tarnishing he gets, and a whole lot more that he doesn't get because people
have forgotten.

------
mgamache
The problem with the press coverage of this topic is a lack of
personalization. What does the government know about _me_ and why is that
important? I think most US citizens would be shocked to learn that most of our
personal information is accessible without a warrant. (phone records / bank
account / email / web history / phone location data / Car location / Purchase
history / Facebook etc....). Also, how much the government can interpret from
that information.

~~~
strictnein
All that is available without a warrant? Strange then that the government gets
search warrants for lots of that stuff.

edit: Maybe my sarcasm/snark wasn't clear: almost the entirety of the parent
comment's list of stuff available to the government without a warrant actually
requires a warrant.

~~~
toddmorey
Would be interesting to get a comprehensive list of what is and isn't
available without a warrant from a judge. For example...

"Police can get phone records without a warrant thanks to a 1979 Supreme Court
case, Smith v. Maryland, which found that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to a list of
phone numbers. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) — a 1986 law
that underpins much of how the government can get digital data — requires
providers to allow access to real-time data with a court order and historical
data with a subpoena."

[https://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-
how...](https://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-how-the-
government-can-still-get-your-digital-data)

------
1001101
It's interesting that the article mentions then Sen. Obama's change of heart
re: the FISA Amendments Act - saying he would filibuster it and then voting
for it. I wonder what led to his change of heart. I haven't heard that
explained.

~~~
andy_ppp
Probably that he was running for president and wanted to appear on the side of
the security services? Then when in office it clearly must be a useful tool to
start build profiles of everyone and be able to mine their activities.

~~~
grandalf
Exactly. I think it also underscores Obama's unprincipled, opportunistic
nature. This is not a criticism of Obama, I think it applies to all
presidents, and likely most elected officials worldwide.

~~~
ak4g
Pragmatism is a principle.

~~~
grandalf
> Pragmatism is a principle.

Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are
of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office,
good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most
other contexts.

~~~
ak4g
Towards any end at all. IRL, there are no points for effort, and certainly no
points for purity of intent. The proof is in the pudding.

And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that
would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent
elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent
co-worker.

~~~
grandalf
> The proof is in the pudding.

Exactly, and while Obama promised "no surveillance pudding" he actually went
into the kitchen and made "massive metadata surveillance pudding".

------
emehrkay
Where exactly does Paul stand on issues of privacy like this? You'd think we
is against it, but he is also okay with ISPs selling your browsing history.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators-
new...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators-new-bill-
would-let-isps-sell-your-web-browsing-data/)

~~~
mi100hael
Whether or not you agree, there is a legitimate & legal distinction between a
private corporation and a publicly-funded government organization.

~~~
emehrkay
Line gets fuzzy when ISPs, in most part, are government-backed monopolies (I'm
"lucky" because both Verion and Comcast covers my area)

~~~
datatan
He is against them being government backed monopolies. According to him, and I
agree, we should be able to switch ISP's at will. If we do not want an ISP
selling our data we should have the freedom to move to one that doesn't.

~~~
zachsnow
This sounds great for N >> 1 ISPs. But most of us have N > 1 (and N <= 2) from
which to choose.

------
Darthy
Of course the other 7.2 billion people in the world are also routinely
monitored, but since this is an action on foreign territory, these 7.2 billion
people have no recourse against this practice.

~~~
willstrafach
I hear this brought up a lot but do not see how it would be an issue. This is
part of the job of an intelligence agency.

Something often ignored: The intelligence agencies of other countries are
likely to be doing the same thing. It has already been shown that BND and GCHQ
engage in similar behavior with regards to upstream and satellite signals
interception, but it seems foolish to assume that other countries are not
engaging in this type of intelligence collection.

~~~
rbg246
No i don't think it is the job of an intelligence agency to spy on the rest of
the world's citizens and i think its a terrible idea to normalise this
behaviour as such or to somehow make it sound ethical.

The everyone else is doing it defence does not change the unethical nature of
the action.

~~~
willstrafach
I am curious how you would define "spying" though.

\- Should NGA not use imaging satellites to keep track of national disasters
and environmental issues?

\- Should NGA not use imaging satellites for nuclear non-proliferation
monitoring?

\- Should DoD not have digital sensors at the egress points of their networks
to gather information on attacks by foreign actors?

\- Should NSA not monitor the communications of foreign adversaries to
determine their intentions on the battlefield?

\- Should NSA not investigate adversarial nations launching attacks and
information-gathering operations against DoD infrastructure as well as US
private industry?

\- Should our military intelligence branches not monitor weapons development
of adversarial nations (using ELINT measurements, imaging satellites, along
with other forms of intelligence gathering to determine their
offensive/defensive capabilities)

\- Should we not use SIGINT sensors and capabilities to detect an incoming
attack on the USA or an ally?

\- I can add a whole lot more to this list if interested.

The act of "spying" is far more than just SIGINT collection and processing of
internet data. Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with? Do
you take issue with all intelligence collection as a whole, or specifically
SIGINT collection, or more specifically SIGINT collection of internet data or
phone records? I am curious and like to keep an open mind about these things,
so am being genuine when I ask this.

~~~
dredmorbius
Generally: false equivalence, excluded middle.

~~~
willstrafach
I do not understand. The question was:

> Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with?

~~~
dredmorbius
And I'm responding specifically to that response.

------
lordnacho
I have a question about this whole government intrusion thing. Perhaps a
lawyer can explain:

Suppose the government gets a warrant to wiretap some guy. He happens to get a
call from his lawyer, and the government overhears that he's committed some
crime.

Now there's an attorney/client privilege preventing you from directly
producing the tape (is there?) so you can't just do that. But the fact that
you've heard this means as an investigator you'll probably pursue this guy
much more aggressively, and perhaps gather other evidence rather than give up.

How does that work?

~~~
ealexhudson
If you gather other evidence, it's called "parallel construction" and it's A
Thing. It doesn't just apply to wire-taps; all sorts of evidence would be
inadmissible, but of course once investigators know something there are often
other ways of figuring out a means to get evidence (or, at least, getting to
the point you can justify a warrant).

------
linkregister
The author of this article did a poor job of refuting Susan Hennessey's
statement that reverse targeting is unlawful and not practiced. Taking an
excerpt of a Hayden speech and then highlighting his statement that
"communications with one end in the U.S." are the most interesting doesn't
really prove this.

The author would have a stronger argument by sticking to the facts. Searches
of U.S. persons without a warrant are directly at odds with the language in
the 4th amendment of the Constitution, full stop.

------
willvarfar
Why aren't politicians and their staff using end-to-end encrypted VOIP?

~~~
mysterypie
The same reason you aren't. The same reason PGP has been around for 25 years
and only a miniscule fraction of people ever encrypt their email.

I.e., it's because none of this privacy technology is built-in as the default
into our communications infrastructure. Therefore, for the average person (and
even for privacy-conscious techies), it is inconvenient and difficult, and you
have to convince the party you're talking with to also install and configure
something that is inconvenient and difficult for them.

I'm convinced that the question of _why_ end-to-end crypto isn't the default
is a political one; i.e., there is pressure not to do it.

~~~
mirimir
It's really not that hard. Mumble works quite well in TCP mode, via Tor onion
service. That gives you end-to-end encryption plus some anonymity. Except for
the voiceprint issue, anyway. And you get cellular-level sound quality.
Latency isn't problematic if you run in press-to-transmit mode.

~~~
throwaway2048
Mumble is not end to end encryption, at least if the setup isnt one of a party
of two running a server.

~~~
mirimir
It's easy to run your own server in Whonix. Friends can run clients in Whonix.

------
caycep
Dana Priest and William Arkin's project documents a lot of the issues w/ the
intelligence bureaucract.... [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-
america/](http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/)

------
wallace_f
The world would be a much worse place without people like Greenwald.

------
strictnein
One feels that Paul doesn't quite have a full grasp of the techniques he's
describing (and it sounds like he's conflating a lot of stuff that Snowden
leaked), but that headline sure gets the clicks, so let's go with it.
Especially since it's Greenwald, who uses Paul's jumbled mess of an
explanation to burn everything down.

Doesn't even make sense what he's proposing: Instead of getting a warrant to
record the American, the NSA targets the foreigner? But what if they call
someone else overseas? Or call people in the US? Seems like a really
suboptimal way of targeting someone. And a low-level employee could unmask the
caller? Sure, and that could also lead to that employee getting fired and
prosecuted. I can access lots of data at work, but I would be shown the door
and possibly sued if I did so.

~~~
rosser
Paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, "You spy on your own people within the legal
regime you've got, not the one you wish you had."

~~~
strictnein
You can legally tap phones of Americans in a far less convoluted way than what
Rand Paul attempted to describe.

