NSA policy on cybersecurity-

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by Anonymous, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member
    Gen Alexander's talk at Black Hat in July 2013. He claims 20 people have died due to Snowden's leaks. His reply to the question "I'm going to call my mom and dad. Will NSA listen?" was "No. there are two parts to that."
    "That's a yes or no question!"
    He says security people who try to circumvent the NSA controls on data monitoring are found out because there is a 100% audit. In other words the NSA data controls have been breached.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Anonymous Member
    LERT Hotline
    (800) 451-5242
    – Prompt 1: General Information
    – Prompt 2: Subpoenas & Search Warrants
    – Prompt 3: Court Ordered Surveillances
    – Prompt 4: Exigent (24x7)
    Fax Numbers

    Subpoenas & Search Warrants:
    (888) 667-0028

    Court Orders:
    (908) 306-7491
    (908) 306-7492

    (908) 306-7501
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    All together now:

    • Like Like x 3
  4. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  5. Anonymous Member
    The "necessary incident" defense
  6. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    There are 2 NSA programs of domestic surveillance

    Section 215, or business record collection.
  8. Anonymous Member

    Kate Martin -Director of National Security Studies

  9. Kilia Member

    • Like Like x 1
  10. Anonymous Member

    Normally I wouldn’t take the time to read a 32 page document in any depth. There are constraints on my time, and skimming and/or reading the summary is usually the best I can so. But, since you recommended it, I decided the read the whole thing. To put it mildly, I was most disappoint.

    It is a stinking pile of misleading inaccurate piss, being composed of too many debunked government talking points, and will do as much to disinform the reader as a hole in the head.

    Robert Litt, the first speaker, lied. He threw in some woefully misleading analogies and then lied some more. The problem is that Litt’s horseshit was allowed to go unchallenged, and it provided the basis for the comments that followed. Some of his most egregious bullshit included:
    - Claiming ‘the second order’ wasn’t released despite it being published in full five days previous to this event.
    - Claiming that, while discussing the Verizon order, certain things weren’t possible under ‘this program’ – deliberately failing to mention that these things are possible under other programs. Yes, we know that collecting content isn’t possible ‘under this program’, but the documents have been leaked showing the other programs under which you DO collect such content.
    - His utterly disingenuous use of the word ‘incidental’. He says that while collecting certain information that it is possible for other information to also be collected, and terms this ‘incidental’. But, as the Verizon order shows, the NSA is going to all the telephone companies and demanding the entirety of their records. How the fuck can you demand the entirety of Americans’ call records and then try to pretend that collection was ‘incidental’???
    - Litt is downplaying the biggest issue here, which is that if you have collected the entirety of Americans’ call metadata you have already violated the 4th amendment (it specifies “and particularly describing the place to be searched”). This querying bollocks is a distraction from the fact, that per Litt’s own words, that data has already been copied. Let’s illustrate the absurdity here with an analogy. Imagine Litt broke into your home and made copies of all your records. Now image he claimed this was ok because he didn’t read (or query) those records – you’d laugh him off the stage with such a claim, so why not here?

    The above points were with reference to the leaks that had been published prior to the event. Later leaks since have proven Litt’s talking points to be even more deceptive, with new details on the extent and methods of surveillance used by the NSA going much further than what the Verizon order or the Prism slides had shown. But this quote, in particular, is worth noting in light of new revelations:
    Any time that information is collected in violation of the rules, it’s reported immediately to the FISA court and is also reported to the relevant congressional oversight committees. It doesn’t matter how small the – or technical the violation is.”

    A strong statement. So what did the FISA Court say when the Washington Post approached them for comment after WaPo published an internal NSA document on compliance violations? Judge Walton, chief judge of the FISA court, stated “The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court. The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing compliance with its orders.
    What did Congress say when presented with this document? Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee and is a complete cunt who endorses mass spying, admitted she had never seen this or any similar document.

    Another comment from Litt was this one:
    And indeed before the Congress voted in – within the last couple of years, both of these statutes have been reauthorized, and before they were – before they were passed by Congress, information about these programs was made available to every single member of Congress.”
    That’s been utterly shredded with later disclosures, with two members of congress detailing their attempts at gaining information and being ignored. The suppression of briefing sheets prior to important votes has also come to light. No matter how you look at Litt’s claim, either he was lying or he simply doesn’t know any better.

    I could go on, but Litt’s misleading and disingenuous comments should be clear at this point. The problem is that Litt’s crap was practically assumed to be true by later speakers, and it was comical to me to read their comments of freedoms and the first amendment and lip service to privacy in light of how readily they swallowed Litt’s comments. Even if you discount the leaks which came after the event, what was already in the public domain was more than sufficient to call out Litt’s horseshit. By allowing Litt to set the tone of the debate, the result was watered-down platitudes and the occasional barb at Snowden, WaPo and The Guardian.

    With the information that was available when the event was held, the event can be judged neutered, uninformed and completely missing the point. That later leaks have served to greatly amplify those failings is why I wrote “It is a stinking pile of misleading inaccurate piss, being composed of one debunked government talking point after another, and will do as much to disinform the reader as a hole in the head.”

    There are many suitable words and phrases to describe this document. “Excellent read” should not be among them. It was a waste of time to read it, and was a waste of time to write this.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    "Excellent read" did not mean "I won't come in your mouth", I meant it was an excellent read on US policy on domestic spying. I should have been clearer.
  12. Anonymous Member

    September 1, 2000
    A pocket guide to NSA sabotage
    This is from 2000, prior to 9/11, so NSA's argument that this spying would have caught the 9/11 terrorists is a lie.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins