The recent publication of the top secret NSA documents has led me to do a lot of reading, and I would like to discuss some of these things here.
First, let me say that the information in the documents is disturbing, but many of them can be interpreted differently. What I will include in the body of this diary is my interpretation of the data presented in the documents. I will also explain how I think these things are related to the recent TransCanada attempts to label Keystone XL protesters as terrorists, and the government's "Insider Threats" program, as I think these things form part of a larger, more terrifying reality.
Disclosure: I am cynical about these programs and my interpretation is influenced by this fact.
I do not mind other interpretations, but I ask that you stick to talking about the materials in the documents.
I do not want this to devolve into a discussion about President Obama, Eric Holder, Edward Snowden, or Glenn Greenwald.
Let's start with the first document leaked, the FISA Court Order to Verizon, published by the Guardian.
FISA COURT ORDER
This order was produced from a request from the FBI for Verizon to supply "on an ongoing daily basis" all
call data records or telephony metadata created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.
The Data:
1) The NSA appears to be amassing a data base of all call meta data within the U.S. and this is an ongoing process. (NOTE: The FISC order apparently just relates to a subsidiary of Verizon, but there is no reason to think that they are solely interested in just this one company's phone records)
2) The NSA is interested in tracking this information for U.S. citizens.
The Implications:
The NSA has the capability of tracking the movements and phone behaviors of any person living in the United States. This, coupled with recent revelations that TransCanada is trying to treat Keystone XL protestors as TERRORISTS is quite disturbing. To me this means that the NSA would track the movements of people associated with these protests. Imagine if the government had this kind of power during the labor movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. If you are familiar with the Heymarket Affair in Chicago, the reason why Labor Day is celebrated in early May worldwide, then you would know that the government tends to fall on the side of the corporation.
UPDATE: One commenter has suggested that TransCanada is only trying to get people who commit illegal activity labeled as terrorists. He suggest this includes sabotage. I think that illegal activity includes a lot of things these days related to protests. Like trespassing, protesting outside a free speech zone, not having a license, etc. Of course this is my cynical view again. I leave this update to show there is legitimate criticism and dispute over what I imply here.
Ok, let's move on to the PRISM program. The information comes from a few slides published by the Guardian. Prism Article
The most intriguing information that came from this slide is the following:
Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, Youtube, Apple
There are various interpretations as to what "directly from the servers" refers to, and the documents appear to reveal that the PRISM program exclusively targets communications that occur outside of the U.S. Therefore, this revelation has been treated most ambivalently within the U.S.
Actually, I am not an IT specialist, and what I know about FTP servers and such is minimal. It seems, however, that this is probably the least important of the leaks with respect to U.S. Citizens, but it is important to people who live outside the U.S.
The third set of leaked documents are potentially the most important, but also the most open to various interpretations. These documents consist of two orders signed by Eric Holder and stamped "received" by the FISA court.
The Guardian has published these documents, and you can read them in full here.
The first lists the procedures to used by the NSA to target non-U.S. persons.
The second, which I will discuss here, are the rules to minimize data collection on U.S. Persons.
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, and I would surely love to see someone like AdamB discuss his interpretation of this document.
Here is the most pertinent part of the document:
Acquisition means the collection by NSA or the FBI through electronic means of a non-public communication to which it is not an intended party.
OK, so we are clearly talking about CONTENT here and not Meta Data.
Communications of a United States person include all communications to which a United States person is a party.
OK, this is who the document is considering. So it involves calls within the U.S. and between the U.S. and foreign nations. The most germane section is Section 3: Acquisition and Processing.
Monitoring, Recording, and Processing (U)
(1) Personnel will exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether information
acquired must be minimized and will destroy inadvertently acquired communications
of or concerning a United States person at the earliest practicable point in the
processing cycle at which such communication can be identified either: as clearly not
relevant to the authorized purpose of the acquisition; the communication does
not contain foreign intelligence information; or, as not containing evidence of a
crime which may be disseminated under these procedures. Such inadvertently
acquired communications of or concerning a United States person may be retained no
longer than five years in any event. The communications that may be retained
include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on NSASS ability
to filter communications. ....
(4) As a is reviewed, NSA analyst(s) will determine whether it is a
domestic or foreign communication to, from, or about a target and is reasonably
believed to contain foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime.
This tells us that the discretion is left up to the NSA analyst's reasonable judgment, and that the saved information can be stored for up to five years.
Communications and other information, including that reduced to graphic or "hard copy" form such as facsimile, telex, computer data, or equipment einanations, will be reviewed for retention in accordance with the standards set forth in these procedures. Communications and other information, in any form, that do not meet such retention standards and that are to contain communications of or concerning United States persons will be destroyed upon recognition, and may be retained no longer than five years in any event. The communications that may be retained include eiectronic communications acquired because of limitations on NSA's ability to filter communications.
OK, so the rules do say that once the analyst discovers the communications are purely U.S. origin they must be destroyed. However, remember if they find evidence in these materials of interest to the FBI, then they can keep them, and forward them to the FBI.
Interpretation: First, I want to be fair and say that most of the document includes rules that protect American citizens from being spied on. However, in my view, this is a very cleverly written document that appears to protect American citizens, while giving analysts broad powers to listen in to their communications to determine if they are indeed U.S. persons. I worry about this because IMO, the FBI can ask the NSA to listen in to OWS or Keystone XL protesters, i.e. eco-terrorists" and save their communications for up to five years.
Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about McClatchy's recent article about the "Insider Threats" program.
According to McClatchy these documents mirror the NSA procedure documents signed by Eric Holder, in that they provide protections for Whistleblowers through internal channels, while at the same time punishing more harshly those who do not use it. To me, this is another clever document designed to stifle would be whistleblowers.
Let me tell you from personal experience that reporting Waste, Fraud, and Abuse through the Chain of Command is completely impossible. Just ask any of the female military personnel who have been raped. Not only that, but I have personal experience in this regard.
While I was in Afghanistan, I was sent by my chain of command to support Marines and Special Operation Forces mission with the ANA company I was mentoring in the Kunar province. My own chain of command would not supply us anything, nor would the forces we were supporting, except on limited bases if it helped their mission. On more than one occasion, this put us in unnecessary danger, when I complained they tried to get me in trouble, using an email I had sent to a friend. I don't know how they got it, but I openly asked them to court martial me, and they balked, and just concluded I was "stressed". This is what the chain of command does to "trouble makers"
All of these facts when put together scare me. I am worried that this apparatus is being constructed and perfected to limit whistle blowers, while at the same time blurring the corporate/government lines. I am worried that these things can lead to people who protest things like Keystone XL pipeline, fracking, or poisonous mining can be easily "neutralized". This is third-world country scary to me, because I spend lots of time in Oaxaca and have observed how a Canadian mining company has the power to have indigenous protestors assassinated.
Mexican Farmers up Against Canadian Mining Goliaths
UPDATE:Thanks you for putting this on the rec list. I do invite any discussion about these documents. I certainly welcome people who interpret them differently to an honest discussion about it.