
NSA loophole allows warrantless search for US citizens' emails and phone calls - LoganCale
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls
======
detcader
A baseball player lied to Congress and got charged with perjury. James Clapper
lied to Congress, all the politicians listed in this article lied to the U.S.
public, and what will they get? Industry jobs and high positions when they
leave office. Capital rewards behavior benefiting capital.

~~~
anigbrowl
Dubious syllogism. Baseball players certainly reward capital, in spades. by
all accounts, overweening NSA surveillance is hurting capital as Europeans in
particular seek other vendors for cloud services.

Not to mention the fact that baseball is a sport of entertainment, and is you
strike out people won't be blaming the deaths of others on you.

~~~
detcader
There's no baseball lobby, at least not one that would care about an
individual player, and I'm sure a couple of Europeans dropping Gmail is not
going to make any lobbyists upset at these politicians for trying to defend
their special interests (through lying or otherwise)

------
bmiranda
It's disheartening that despite the continual stream of information pouring in
about the NSA the average citizen remains comparatively indifferent and the
media and most representatives seem to be supportive of the NSA's activities.

That being said, I wouldn't go as far as to say the average American doesn't
care, just that their reaction in light of these leaks is underwhelming. I
don't believe that the slide towards total surveillance (or anything for that
matter) is _inevitable_ , but I would much appreciate confronting mass
surveillance now as opposed to 10-20 years down the road.

~~~
dictum
Speculation:

1\. American citizens do not believe the people running the US government are
or could become corrupt;

2\. They haven't considered, or are not bothered by the fact that their habits
will be shaped by the fact that someone is watching;

3\. They believe the infrastructure will be used against anything that
represent existential threats (terrorism), grave injustice (child pornography)
or grave moral threat (a fringe political group);

4\. Despite the fact that the definition of terrorism is quite fluid and could
be used to target any stand against the government (as opposed to against the
country itself), they don't want another 9/11 and see the apparatus as
necessary to prevent it;

5\. They believe the USG chooses sides in international conflicts based on
moral considerations, and not realpolitik which often hurts them later (see:
Al Qaeda)—or are comfortable with amoral positions as long as they benefit the
country in the bottom line;

6\. They do not believe those in power can change their minds in the future;

7\. They don't believe in authorities framing innocent persons;

8\. My favorite, one-track point of discussion here: Americans are slightly
xenophobic. So they're fairly happy to know the US has a big machine to track
and all those pesky foreigners and keep their countries nice and obedient.

And it's not like the beliefs are unfounded. The US government has generally
been good for its citizens. The only truly harmful actions of the USG have
been targeted at other countries. You don't feel threatened until a drone
kills your teenage son. But while your government does that thousands of miles
away from you, it's easy to be forgiving of all that.

Americans are not used to systemic corruption and tyranny, so they don't have
the framework to consider their state becoming authoritarian or totalitarian.

~~~
john_b
Regarding #1, if you've looked at Americans' confidence in Congress lately [1]
it seems exceedingly unlikely that Americans perceive their elected officials
as incorruptible. In fact, that has mostly been the case post-Watergate.

> _" Americans are not used to systemic corruption and tyranny, so they don't
> have the framework to consider their state becoming authoritarian or
> totalitarian."_

I agree, and I'll add that since the US is still a relatively young country
whose present form of government has been in existence since shortly after its
inception, Americans have trouble mentally disassociating their opinion of
America--its culture, its people, its common beliefs--with their opinion of
American government. In countries where citizens have lived to see multiple
governments come and go, this is much easier to do. Americans, however, seem
to have a hard time loving their country but hating their government, even
when their government actively works to undermine and destroy some of the best
qualities of their country.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-
congr...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congress-
falls-lowest-record.aspx)

~~~
rayiner
In a 2013 poll, people who could name their own Congressman approved of them 2
to 1: [http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-
ow...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-
representative.aspx). This is basically the most telling poll out of any. The
people who can name their Congressman are probably the people who vote
regularly, and out of those people, the vast majority support maintaining the
status quo.

~~~
john_b
Interesting, thanks for the link. There are very likely some hometown bias
effects as well, but my speculation is that Congress as a whole is judged by
different standards than a person's congressional representative. The former,
I would imagine, would tend to be judged by its actions (and how they are
portrayed by others), while an individual congressman can be judged based on
how well a person identifies with him or her (something not possible to do
with a large heterogeneous group of people).

Whatever the cause, it's a fascinating dissonance.

~~~
rayiner
If I'm a Republican, and I have a Republican congressman, I like him because
he represents my views, for the most part. I dislike Congress as a whole
because half of it disagrees with my views, and the half that does agree with
them is hamstrung by the half that does not.

Despite the rhetoric of "both parties are the same" people really only care
about a few issues, which the parties differ on: taxes, welfare, religion,
education, social issues, etc. I just got hassled on the street today by a
college-aged male to support planned parenthood. Who do you think he votes
for? Why? What does he think of Congress?

------
brown9-2
I'm a bit confused on what the actual "backdoor" here is:

 _" While the FAA 702 minimization procedures approved on 3 October 2011 now
allow for use of certain United States person names and identifiers as query
terms when reviewing collected FAA 702 data," the glossary states, "analysts
may NOT/NOT [not repeat not] implement any USP [US persons] queries until an
effective oversight process has been developed by NSA and agreed to by
DOJ/ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]."

The term "identifiers" is NSA jargon for information relating to an
individual, such as telephone number, email address, IP address and username
as well as their name.

The document – which is undated, though metadata suggests this version was
last updated in June 2012 – does not say whether the oversight process it
mentions has been established or whether any searches against US person names
have taken place._

This seems to suggest that procedures allow for the name of a United States
person when querying data collected under FAA 702 (for example, they could
search for intercepted communications where the parties referred to the
President by name); however, no analyst is allowed to do so until an oversight
procedure is developed and approved.

Is that the entire backdoor? That the name of a US person can be used as a
search term?

~~~
diminoten
It looks like you can search the communications of US persons who interacted
with non-US persons by using the US person's name.

~~~
brown9-2
It sounds like the minimization procedures allow you to search for any US
person's name, not necessarily to find the intercepted communications between
a foreign person and that specific US person.

For example, to find communications where parties A and B were discussing US
Person C.

------
mariusz79
With my tin-foil hat on, I'm wondering if this whole Snowden thing isn't just
to make people numb to the idea that they are being watched 24/7\. And it
seems that people don't care about privacy we can only expect things to get
worse.

~~~
MisterWebz
That's ridiculous. You think they would self-inflict this huge PR nightmare
upon themselves?

They were doing perfectly fine before the leaks, getting cooperation from
major tech companies and other countries and their reach was constantly
expanding.

It's silly to think they'd give all that up by setting in motion something
which could potentially piss of its own citizens and its allies, just for the
off chance that people might become numb to it. Then what happens? They
continue their operations just the same way they did before?

~~~
tjoff
_They were doing perfectly fine before the leaks, getting cooperation from
major tech companies and other countries and their reach was constantly
expanding._

Has anything changed? Has the people involved even noticed any difference,
aside from some black ink in newspapers?

~~~
MisterWebz
The first thing that comes to mind is that they're apparently firing 90% of
their sys admins. Their internal workings are definitely being affected.

------
ewheeler
I wonder what are the differences between the "Sweet* and Sour* Partitions" of
PINWALE?

------
john_b
> _" 702 is focused outside the United States at non-citizens," said Adam
> Schiff, a member of the House intelligence committee. "The evidence of the
> effectiveness of 702 is much more substantial than 215 [the bulk phone
> records collection]. So I think there are fewer fourth amendment concerns
> and more evidence of the saliency of the program."_

Here is as clear an admission as we will ever get that despite all the lip
service politicians are paying to "tradeoffs" between security and liberty,
all they really care about is providing the appearance of security at any
cost. Apparently, when a law is deemed to be "effective" it justifies "fewer
fourth amendment concerns". One wonders if rounding up (aka "rendering)
political activists or people like Glen Greenwald would justify fewer First
Amendment concerns.

When did the Fourth Amendment become a nice little luxury that Americans
jettisoned as soon as rumors of terrorists doing bad things started
circulating?

~~~
SimHacker
They traded the Fourth Amendment in for two Second Amendments.

------
declan
The FBI director publicly assured Rep. Nadler (D-NY) in June that FedGov
needed a "particularized" order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court to target U.S. citizens:
[https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/jQ71osLy...](https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/jQ71osLy7UJ)

Someone's lying. Right?

~~~
brown9-2
There is likely a lawyerly distinction here between "target" and "use person's
name as a query".

------
pcunite
A comment to the artilce by a "Strummered"

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government
fears the people, there is liberty". - Thomas Jefferson

All we have now are corporate lawyers and stooges.

~~~
gruseom
Not only did Jefferson not say that, it wasn't even attributed to him until
1994.

[http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-government-
fea...](http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-government-fears-people-
there-libertyquotation)

------
laxatives
I don't understand why we even use terminology like "loophole" or "allows". I
don't think the NSA really gives a shit about the legality of any of the this.

------
microDude
I am glad I live in Oregon where my representative (Ron Wyden) is actually
offering some resistance.

------
beefxq
This is the end.

