"Incidental" Collection of Domestic Data Unaddressed By Obama Speech

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 10:19:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This terrific piece by Bart Gellman explains how President Obama's speech was woefully lacking in what I think of as one of the most important issues regarding NSA spying:

[T]he NSA is gathering hundreds of millions of e-mail address books, breaking into private networks that link the overseas data centers of Google and Yahoo, and building a database of trillions of location records transmitted by cellphones around the world.

Those operations are sweeping in a large but unknown number of Americans, beginning with the tens of millions who travel and communicate overseas each year. For at least as many Americans, and likely more, the structure of global networks carries their purely domestic communications across foreign switches.

[MORE . . .]

Under the classified rules set forth by the president, the NSA is allowed to presume that any data collected overseas belongs to a foreigner. The “minimization rules” that govern that collection, intended to protect the identities of U.S. citizens and residents, remain classified. The White House and NSA have declined requests to release them.

The NSA term for those high-volume programs is “full take” collection — the interception of entire data flows from the fiber optic cables that carry telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and video chats around the world at the speed of light.

Unless Obama says otherwise in the classified annex to his directive, those programs will carry on unabated.

[. . . Obama] suggested no [...] limit on a far more intrusive form of domestic surveillance: the NSA’s authority to search for and make use of the content of U.S. communications that are “incidentally” collected in surveillance that is targeted on foreign nationals and stored in the agency’s database.

From what I have seen, the President's response is not even close to being adequate. A bit of a farce really.

< Friday Night Open Thread. | Opening SCOTUS Briefs In Hobby Lobby, Conestoga >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

"Incidental" Collection of Domestic Data Unaddressed By Obama Speech | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The bottom line is most of the American people... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Dadler on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 11:57:24 AM EST

...are obviously, and rightfully, cynically wary of the federal government's use of all that personal data, namely that it will be used for things other than terrorist hunting. The implications are ominous, does Obama really not see this? You are talking about a spy state that will, de facto, control the kind of data (and, let's be honest, the ability to create and plant the kind of data) that can be used to smear people, ruin their lives, keep them from speaking out, keep them from running for office, put them in prison, you name it. The precedent here is simply frightening, and it is inarguably antithetical to democracy, freedom, justice, all those little things that, you know, supposedly make America great.

But (none / 0) (#5)
by Politalkix on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 12:57:24 PM EST

why would you want the NSA to disarm unilaterally when almost each activity that you mentioned (power to control the data, have the ability to create and plant the kind of data that can be used to smear people, ruin their lives, keep them from speaking out, keep them from running for office, etc) can be practiced by multinational corporations, powerful interest groups, autocratic foreign governments in China and Russia, unethical hackers around the globe (many that would like to see chaos in the USA and its destruction), etc?


Easy answer (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Dadler on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 05:12:46 PM EST

Because, as the supposedly representative government by, of, and for the people, it is the job of the American government, at every turn, to be better. Not just good, not just adequate. Better.

Short of that we are full of sh*t and useless to the world with our delusions.

Just my opinion.


And not to mention... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Dadler on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 05:17:17 PM EST

...in the cases of private sector breaches you list, the federal government should be your staunchest ally in fighting for your right to privacy, to freedom, to be an American. If it can't do that, it ceases to be what it claims to be. And then, we're no different than another other run of the mill tyranny. We just have better window displays. Again, just my two cents. Worth about a third of a cent at today's rate.


To be better (none / 0) (#14)
by Politalkix on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 07:28:32 PM EST

and to protect the citizenry, the government has to be technologically ahead of all other entities (foreign governments, hackers, multinational corporations, etc) that are already raiding your privacy. Otherwise, the government will have to depend on the expertise of multinational corporations for fixing cyber crimes or regulating cyber activities that are harmful to the national interest.

What can go wrong with that? Just asked yourself what happened when oil companies had more expertise than the government on drilling technology, cleaning up oil spills, etc. The government had to be totally dependent on the same companies that created the mess, to fix the mess when accidents occurred.

Scooping up everybody's metadata also prevents problems like profiling.

I am more comfortable with the government having greater power than other entities because we have some say in electing our governments. What say do we have in curbing the activities of hackers, multinational corporations, foreign governments, etc?


To quote Dadler, above: (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by Anne on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 07:49:10 PM EST

"...the federal government should be your staunchest ally in fighting for your right to privacy, to freedom, to be an American. If it can't do that, it ceases to be what it claims to be."

The government should not have more power than the people; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to prevent that from happening, just as they were intended to prevail over shifts in political ideology. It was intentionally made extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, for just that reality - that majorities come and go, and our rights are too precious to leave to the mercy of whichever party is in power at any given moment.

This, from you, makes no sense to me at all:

Really? How so, and who is prevented from doing this profiling?

Your government should bring its power to bear against "foreign governments, hackers, multinational corporations, etc.," in protecting our privacy, but the quid pro quo should not be that our own government takes our privacy instead.


The genie is already out of the bottle (none / 0) (#16)
by Politalkix on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 08:18:23 PM EST

when it comes to "foreign governments, hackers, multinational corporations, etc.," in raiding our privacy.

The government cannot win the battle to provide protection against cyber warfare and crimes by perennially being in a reactive mode. Let the courts decide what is legal and what the constitution allows. I am quite sure that the administration will abide by judicial decisions or legislation that congress may pass after consideration of all matters relating to privacy and security.


The government is not protecting (5.00 / 5) (#17)
by Anne on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 11:25:57 PM EST

our privacy by taking it away from us; what is it about that concept that you don't get?

As for this:

I am quite sure that the administration will abide by judicial decisions or legislation that congress may pass after consideration of all matters relating to privacy and security.

I don't think you have a clue how much of what is happening is the result of executive orders, how many of the efforts to obtain "judicial decisions" have been thwarted and rigged by the invocation of state secrets privilege, and how little the administration has shared with those who are supposed to be overseeing these things.

But then, educating yourself might shatter whatever illusions you're clinging to that this administration or this president give's a rat's ass about privacy, transparency or the damn constitution he's always touted as being such an expert on.

You're reaching the point where your comments read like bumper stickers: glib, simple and eye-rollingly ridiculous.


{sigh} (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by nycstray on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 11:31:05 PM EST

I don't think you have a clue how much of what is happening is the result of executive orders, . . .

No clues needed, just pom-poms.


Greenwald, Snowden, Assange (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Politalkix on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 07:05:49 PM EST

As Greenwald, Assange and Snowden hysterically shriek "Are you scared, yet" while lying through their teeth, Sean Wilentz has written a thought provoking article about their motivations based on a lot of research.

Here is the link to the article.

I do not know whether this article will give the usual pompom carriers of the mentioned trio any pause, however it may be useful to other commenters.


The New Republic article by (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by KeysDan on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:09:59 PM EST

Professor Wilentz provoked thoughts neither of pom poms nor of motivations of the named trio, but it did so with regard to those he, himself, was presenting in the name of fair argument.

It seems to me that a case could be made against Greenwald, Assange and Snowden without resorting to hackneyed character assassinations. Whatever reasonable points Mr. Wilentz makes are outweighed by attempts at demonization and guilt-by-association.

The article is replete with examples, but exactly what "hints" in adult development are we expected to get from a teenage Snowden's affection for a particular hand-gun? Is is noteworthy to point out Snowden is a high school drop out? Or bringing a point up only to correct it ( Snowden failed to complete training in Special Forces and was discharged; parenthetically adding that he broke both legs in training).

Or, is Greenwald suspect because as a lawyer he defended unpopular defendants (neo-Nazi, no less) and unpopular causes? Professor Wilentz sort of taking it back after allowing the matter to arise (Greenwald's pro bono work was evidence of nothing other than a principled lawyer-- guess that is fair and balanced writing.)

Or, that Greenwald seemingly should be discounted because he has attacked Obama on such issues as opposing cuts to social security and medicare, attacking Wall St. corruption, and decrying inequalityJ (Wilentz, himself, in 2008, as a Clinton friend and supporter, charged Senator Obama of creating manipulative illusions and distortions). And, that he felt Ron Paul had some good ideas (e.g. anti-war, anti-surveillance, anti-drug).

Professor Wilentz, more than most, should be careful of broad-brushing and guilt-by-association what with his major historical contributions relating to reconstruction of Andrew Jackson. Some critics, unfairly, associated him, because of his positions, with being insensitive to Jackson's support for slavery and harsh treatment of Native Americans.

This was a disappointing article that does not deserve to be referred to either for or against revelations of NSA's programs. It is, as if, this article was commissioned or, worse, free-lanced to curry favor. If it succeeded at all, it does so my changing the subject from the message to the messengers.


Prof.Wilentz (none / 0) (#24)
by Politalkix on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:13:43 PM EST

introduced Snowden, Greenwald and Assange in his article through their own words and actions. If reproduction of their own words and actions cast a bad light on this trio, it is obvious that the truth about them is very unsavory.


Oh, please...it's quite obvious (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by Anne on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 05:34:58 AM EST

what Wilentz is going for, and it sure isn't objectivity; his entire goal is to discredit Greenwald, Assange and Snowden.

And this:

If reproduction of their own words and actions cast a bad light on this trio, it is obvious that the truth about them is very unsavory.

Can we apply that to you? If we can use your words, in our own way, to cast you in a bad light, does that prove you are as unsavory as our choice of your words indicates?

Is that really the kind of logic and tactic you support?


: Yes, Anne (none / 0) (#26)
by Politalkix on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 06:27:19 AM EST

my words apply to me also just as your words apply to you.

Professor Wilentz went over the (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by KeysDan on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:46:57 AM EST

line from polemic to hit job. Lumping actions into a "trio" (or use of the baggage-laden, comrades) ignores the differences and constitutional protections among them, for starters, journalist and NSA contract employee.

If Professor Wilentz did not agree that E = mc2, it would not surprise me if he would attack the theory of relativity by noting that Einstein was not faithful to the first Mrs. Einstein. But, not to worry, he would subsequently observe that Professor Einstein later married that mistress.

It seems, to me, that there is an organized attempt to discredit the messengers so as to change the subject from being seriously discussed and appropriately addressed.

On the Sunday talk shows the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, without providing evidence, claimed that Snowden was a spy for foreign governments. When Senator Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was asked if she agreed, she replied that he may well be, but we do not know. She could have limited her response to "we do not know, or he may or may not be," but she preferred the irresponsible reply--made even more so, in that Edward Snowden has been charged with crimes and may be, at some point, seeking a fair trial.


Not at all! (none / 0) (#28)
by Politalkix on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:09:34 PM EST

Prof. Wilentz was spot on.

I was however quite amused to read your post. I had once heard a Greenbot gush that Greenwald was the "Einstein of the constitution". Little did I know at that time that folks who worship him would go to the extent of actually comparing any tripe he spewed with the work of Einstein, as you did.

Greenwald's way of debating is screaming at people and calling them names like "Obama loyalist", "McCarthy", etc. The ways he screams on television and brawls on twitter is really very immature. His antics with Snowden and Assange almost remind me of Curly, Larry and Moe, and not the great Albert of E=mc2 fame. Just saying this so that you are more careful about presenting ill-thought out analogies in the future!

Prof. Wilentz wrote that Snowden vilified leakers
and defended covert intelligence gathering when GWB was President. Asking what changed in his attitude towards leaking is no different than asking tea partiers why they suddenly became concerned about spending after BHO became president when they did not seem to mind the spending wrought by 2 wars that started under GWB's watch. This question has to be asked to get to the core of the NSA issue as Prof. Wilentz attempted to do. Assange's links with Putin are also extremely relevant. It is very well documented and none of the facts that Prof. Wlntz presented are remotely disputable.

The Republican Chair of the House Intelligence committee or Sen Feinstein are also not wrong in seeking the connection of this trio with Russia. There must be circumstantial evidence that they are aware of, based on the type of information Snowden stole. The espionage issue may simply come down to a matter of ascertaining when Snowden and Greenwald got in touch with Assange/Wikileaks (who has been controlled by Putin for a while) for the first time and for how long Snowden and Greenwald have known each other.

You seem too eager to brush every relevant question under the carpet so that a false and carefully crafted narrative that the trio have provided to the world is not disturbed in any way. I will have to wonder why you are doing so.

: Speaking of a "false narrative" (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Yman on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 09:27:25 PM EST

I was however quite amused to read your post. I had once heard a Greenbot gush that Greenwald was the "Einstein of the constitution". Little did I know at that time that folks who worship him would go to the extent of actually comparing any tripe he spewed with the work of Einstein, as you did.
... and "tripe", Keysdan did not compare Greenwald to Einstein. If you actually read his post, he stated that if Wilentz disagreed with Einstein's Theory of relativity, he would attack Einstein personally.
OTOH, maybe you did read the post, and chose to intentionally misrepresent it ...

: The more you write, the deeper the (3.00 / 2) (#31)
by Anne on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:49:56 AM EST

hole gets, the more your writing reminds me of the wild and McCarthyite rantings of people like Peter King.
As far as I'm concerned, what little credibility you might have had - and it wasn't much - has gone to zero when it comes to challenging or questioning the liberal/Democratic bona fides of people like me.
It's sad if this is you taking these positions out of an effort to support what you believe are Obama's positions; if that's the (totally misguided) case, wake the fk up and snap out of it: you are not doing yourself - or your country - any favors. And you look like a stone cult member.
If this is you taking these positions because you truly believe the kind of character assassination being perpetrated by Wilentz is justified, site rules prohibit me from expressing what that makes you look like.
Either way, your comments are revealing, and examples of why you don't get much support here.

: It is now glaringly apparent (1.00 / 1) (#30)
by KeysDan on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:28:53 AM EST

why you subscribe so strongly to the Sean Wilentz article--you both share the tactics of misrepresentation, character innuendo, and obtuse reasoning to make your argument, such as it is.

Weird comment about oil companies, PK. (none / 0) (#19)
by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 11:33:04 PM EST

The expertise does reside within the oil companies and their subcontractors. The government doesn't clean up spills, the spillers contract it out.


I don't think anyone's asking for (5.00 / 5) (#13)
by Anne on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 06:02:24 PM EST

unilateral disarmament of the NSA, are they?

As things stand, though, so much information about us resides in both the government and the corporate sectors that we, as individuals, stand almost no chance against either.

The power is supposed to reside in the people, not in the government, and the fact that the government is tolerating the corporate collection of data, and even co-opting their efforts, instead of regulating it and reigning it in, is unacceptable.

The possession of information is a political and economic prize, one that can be used for damaging and nefarious purposes, and that is just as true if it's in the hands of the US government as in the hands of "multinational corporations, powerful interest groups, autocratic foreign governments in China and Russia, unethical hackers around the globe."

In my opinion, this has gotten out of control, and it has yet to be proved that it has kept us any safer, or interrupted any more terrorist activity; but it has weakened our constitutional protections, seeping down to the state and local level, and we are seeing a shockingly brazen attitude from the intelligence agencies, from law enforcement, and even the justice system, with respect to our rights under the law.

In my opinion, Obama's speech didn't do much to change the ongoing and underlying message of, "yeah, well what are you gonna do about it? Who's gonna stop us? - you? Don't make us laugh."


The President's speech ... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 12:44:43 PM EST

was woefully lacking in all areas. It was just PR mumbo-jumbo. Every "fix" had a caveat or ten.

He sounded the complete puppet, mouthing nonsense that only TPTB believe. You have to be a special kind of stupid to buy any of it.

Gellman is just pointing one of the problems in the puppet's statement. The problems are legion.

The American public sees through all this nonsense. Or as the kids say:

Epic fail.

Pres. Obama is not anyone's (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by oculus on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 01:21:24 PM EST

"puppet." He is the authorizer of some of this activity. And your argument "everyone else is doing it" doesn't persuade.


Both (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by lentinel on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 06:20:43 AM EST

are possible.

He can be a puppet and an authorizer.

And I believe he is.


Sorry. It wasn't you arguing everyone else is (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 01:23:04 PM EST

collecting this data.


: Correct. I wasn't. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 01:55:33 PM EST

: We need checks and balances (none / 0) (#9)
by Politalkix on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:01:49 PM EST

"when everyone is doing it". NSA fills that role.

I was writing a comment... (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by ruffian on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 12:50:58 PM EST

and my computer froze up. That has never happened on my iMac. If I were not already suspicious...

I don't see that even a court decision would prevent them from taking whatever data they want, or sabotaging any computer. We have no way of knowing it is being done, and no law enforcement org willing or able to go in and actually arrest anyone for doing it. In the open thread someone suggested that encryption technology can thwart them and maybe that will be adopted on a wide scale by the providers or OS builders, if they have not been co-opted.

I lose very little sleep over theft of my money by hackers - I don't have much cash anyway, and credit card charges can be reversed. I expect criminals to be ever present, and to act like criminals. But government spying is so obviously anti-American and wrong I should not even have to write about it.

: ruffian, are you using Disc Utility (none / 0) (#21)
by fishcamp on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 09:35:55 AM EST

the built in maintenance program regularly? It helps a lot. Also I assume you know if your hard drive gets filled up the computer slows down and does weird stuff. Some really fast typists doing fast corrections can freeze a computer. Then they can just freeze for no apparent reason...that's when I go for a walk

Pres. Obama: (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 12:31:16 PM EST

"The United States does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on the basis of their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs," he said. "And we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to U.S. companies or U.S. commercial sectors."

I knew pre-Snowden, my government could listen to telephone conversations between my daughter, who was living in Ireland, and me. Now I know my government is capturing any and all of my emails and texts because I've emailed the Berlin Philharmonic, Salzburg Festspiele, et. al.

I'm pleased my government does not discriminate.

My Pres., as a presidential candidate and elected Senator, stated he would support a filibuster re the proposed FISA revise.

President Obama's speech (none / 0) (#10)
by KeysDan on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:16:00 PM EST

was gilded with acknowledgement of his responsibility to balance security with privacy and civil liberties. However, it soon became glaringly apparent that his thumb was on the scale so that his role as custodian of national security outweighed constitutional niceties.

My earlier hope that the reforms would constitute more than a patina of change, have been diminished to a hope that they will result in at least a nano-patina of difference. Much has been discussed as to whether we would be better off if private company servers hold data or if data is held at government data centers, by-passing the foundational issue of collection of bulk data and un-targeted spying.

It was somewhat heartening to note that President Obama did call on Congress to create a panel of advocates to argue in "significant cases" before the FISA Court, which now only hears arguments from the government. However, if this is not a strongly held belief, there is safety in this proposal going nowhere.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, with Senator Feinstein and colleagues of the same mind, are likely to be persuaded by the lobbying of John Bates (no relation to the motel owner, but just as scary), former Chief of the Surveillance Court , who wrote that privacy advocates are unnecessary and potentially counter-productive. And, that public disclosure of the Court's decisions (in a general sense) would just confuse citizens. Mum's the word.

Judge Bates, in effect, presents a good argument for a change in how and who is appointed to the FISA Court. Chief Justice Roberts, as good as he is, should not be the sole decider, nor should any associate justice(s) or judge(s) be the appointers of another Judge to this Court without Congress to advise and consent.