N.S.A. Said to Search Content of Messages to and From U.S.

[boston bean]

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans’ e-mail and text communications into and out of the country, hunting for people who mention information about foreigners under surveillance, according to intelligence officials.

The N.S.A. is not just intercepting the communications of Americans who are in direct contact with foreigners targeted overseas, a practice that government officials have openly acknowledged. It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official.

While it has long been known that the agency conducts extensive computer searches of data it vacuums up overseas, that it is systematically searching — without warrants — through the contents of Americans’ communications that cross the border reveals more about the scale of its secret operations.

It also adds another element to the unfolding debate, provoked by the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, about whether the agency has infringed on Americans’ privacy as it scoops up e-mails and phone data in its quest to ferret out foreign intelligence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad-is-seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[leftstreet]

1. But Obama said there's no spying on Americans

Obama To Leno: 'There Is No Spying On Americans'

by Greg Henderson
August 07, 201312:44 AM


President Obama defended the , telling NBC's Jay Leno on Tuesday that: "There is no spying on Americans."

"We don't have a domestic spying program," Obama said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. "What we do have is some mechanisms that can track a phone number or an email address that is connected to a terrorist attack. ... That information is useful."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/06/209692380/obama-to-leno-there-is-no-spying-on-americans

DURec

[Recursion]

4. There's not. They're spying on the foreign person the US citizen is talking with

As with metadata, people need to keep in mind that privacy, like security, sinks to the lowest common denominator in any exchange.

[rhett o rick]

6. Remember when the NSA spying "on the foreign person the US citizen is talking with"

THEY ARE SPYING ON THE AMERICAN ALSO. And I guess you missed the NSA admitting that they include a "double bump" meaning they not only spy on the Americans communicating with foreigners, they also spy on all those the American communicates with, AND ALL THOSE THAT THEY COMMUNICATE WITH. A little basic math would tell you that's millions of people.

I cant understand your obsession with defending the NSA?

[Recursion]

7. That's not how the double bump works

I can't understand your obsession with conflating multiple stories.

[rhett o rick]

8. Do you believe the NSA should have any regulation and oversight?

If so do you believe what we have now is sufficient?

How much of our GNP should be given to Booz-Allen-Hamilton for the "promise" of security?

And why are you so obsessive with defending the NSA?

Are you afraid that criticism of the NSA will reflect badly on the President?

[Recursion]

14. Significantly more than it does

If so do you believe what we have now is sufficient?

No, the problem now is the same thing it's been since 2008: the law gives intelligence agencies far too much discretion.

[mrdmk]

35. Well shit then, the NSA must look at all of my e-mail because of some smuck from Nigeria

who attempted to screw me out of some money over my computer!

Talk about a double whammy, if one does not get you, the other will...

[Recursion]

36. That's more State's bag

My wife used to field calls weekly from duped men in the US whose "fiancee" from Nigeria had been "kidnapped". There's even a question flow chart for it: "Have you ever actually met her, sir?" Etc.

[Mojorabbit]

27. How do you think it works?

I have read a ton of articles about how they do 2nd and third hops amounting to millions of people.

[cthulu2016]

9. Or the foreign person the US citizen is talking *about*

[Recursion]

17. The US person still has to be talking *to* a non-US person

*about* the person of interest. The non US person being talked *to* is whom the NSA is surveilling.

[Th1onein]

37. That's a lie, and you know it.

And why you keep mentioning metadata--are you trying to change the subject? It's NOT metadata. It's CONTENT of emails, just like the article says.

[Savannahmann]

10. But they aren't excluding Americans talking with Americans

Just because the email bounces out of the country doesn't mean it is going to a foreigner. You could be talking to a friend in another town in the same state, but due to data snafu's and server load the message could be routed out of the country and back in. Also, the person you are talking to could well be an American living and working overseas.

The problem here is not the justification, it is the action. But for the sake of argument, let's say I am talking to a foreigner. Let's say I am talking to an old friend I met years ago working a job, who was born in and has returned to Aruba. If I was in Aruba talking with this person, the authorities would not be justified to listen to the conversation. If we were both sitting in a café in New York, same thing.

Geographic location is the lamest of excuses. But it is interesting to watch the progression of arguments. They go from it's not happening, which we were told it wasn't more than once, to it's justified and legal, to it's old news in record time.

Keep defending, because the sum or all these stories is going to see public disgust with Washington reach new levels, and here is the bad part. The first party that comes out and makes restoration of Civil Rights their platform, wins. Now we Democrats seem bound and determined to chase this crap down the hole, while Rand Paul seems to understand the truth of this. Do you realize if he campaigns that he will stop it that he will be elected in 2016? So then what? Will we become the obstructionist party by defending the indefensible? Or will we finally see the light when it is far too late to do us any good?

[Recursion]

16. Yes, they are. One party has to be outside of the US

If I was in Aruba talking with this person, the authorities would not be justified to listen to the conversation. If we were both sitting in a café in New York, same thing.

Errr... that's two totally different situations, legally.

[leftstreet]

20. They only extract the info on the foreign person's end?

Not the American's?

[Recursion]

23. It's the same info on both sides, so the distinction isn't terribly meaningful (nt)

[leftstreet]

24. But they're not getting it on the American end, right?

Just on the 'foreign' end?

Otherwise Obama was...wrong in his statement that there's no spying on Americans

[Recursion]

25. That is my understanding, yes

Though the target seems to only have to "probably" be foreign, which is something I would like to see changed.

[ljm2002]

22. You say they are not? From the OP:

"The N.S.A. is not just intercepting the communications of Americans who are in direct contact with foreigners targeted overseas, a practice that government officials have openly acknowledged. It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official. "

Citing information about someone is not the same thing as talking with someone. If we here on DU are discussing foreign affairs and the War on Terror, we are likely to mention the names of terrorists. This could easily happen if one was citing text from a news article. If they are looking for references to terrorists, then lots of us here are at least in their database. Which yes, I acknowledge, it is likely most of us are in one database or another anyway. But that doesn't mean we need to be okay with that.

Anyway the phrasing above does describe a "far wider net" than was hitherto acknowledged. It is more evidence that the surveillance being done is much greater than our secret agencies have admitted or want us to know about.

[Recursion]

26. You're mixing up two questions

The American has to be talking to a foreigner to have the content checked about "key" people. I can email you about Zawahiri all day and NSA will never know (but remember FBI has been mining domestic emails for decades).

[Life Long Dem]

2. What exactly does that mean anyway?

It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official.

Sounds like more media spin to me.

[morningfog]

3. It sounds like another crack in the wall.

Slowly, bit by bit, the scope of the NSA's abuses is growing.

[Recursion]

5. What doesn't make sense about it?

Zawahiri has a little-known email address. If I mention it in an email to a foreigner, that pricks up the ears of the NSA and they look at what I'm doing. If they decide it's relevant to national security, they can keep what I sent.

[Life Long Dem]

11. NSA doesn't start here in the states

So if you mention an uknown email address in your email the NSA would have had to of picked up this communication to begin with in a foreign land.

That's what NSA tells us. That everything originates in a foreign land. And why Obama says they don't spy on Americans.

If I mention it in an email to a foreigner, that pricks up the ears of the NSA

[Recursion]

18. Yes, I would have to be emailing a friend in another country

Though intra-US communications are still mined by whatever replaced CARNIVORE in the 90s.

That's a good point.

[treestar]

12. Can they do it without a warrant?

Or is it freely available to them?

If my friend in Paris sends me an email, how is the government able to read it? Is it hacking or is that something any computer expert could do, or what?

[millennialmax]

13. I doubt the average American fits any of this criteria.

[Duer 157099]

19. So privacy is only for "average" Americans now?

Since when? I thought it was for all Americans. Being average sucks.

[MineralMan]

15. The NSA has always been tasked with international communications

to and from the US, whether they involve U.S. citizens or not. Once the communication goes to or comes from someone outside of the US, it's within the NSA's jurisdiction. That's been part of the NSA's charter since it was created.

Even paper mail sent through the USPS is subject to examination, and that has been the case for a very long time. Similarly, international telephone calls, cables, and other communications have been monitored or tracked since the 1960s, at least.

There's nothing new about this, except for the medium. The goal has always been to discover nefarious activity originating outside of the US, and that appears to still be the goal. Ordinary communications are simply ignored, since they have nothing to do with the mission of the NSA, which is narrowly drawn.

For domestic communications, the FBI is responsible, and additional legal issues are involved before the FBI can access domestic communications.

That is how it works, and has worked for a very, very long time. No surprises in this.

[Koios]

30. But ...

I'm an American citizen, residing here in the US, being spied upon when sending a private (hahaha) email to Canada, or Germany, or wherever.

Of course I have nothing to worry about, since I voted for Obama, who had explained to me about the Constitution, i.e. #4 on the top 10 list, and how he would stop spying on US Citizens, and be really transparent and such.

So I'm just sure this is old news and voting for Obama solved the problem.

[Koios]

31. Oops ... just learned ...

... it's still going on, and being scaled up. My bad.

So it's okay, and will save me from certain death, sometime this year. Thank you President Obama, for this vital program which only sucked and violated our Constitutional Rights when GW Bush was doing it.

[MineralMan]

32. No human even sees your emails.

They go directly to the null device as of zero interest. Thry do not even register.

[Koios]

33. But my private communication is ...

... now in possession of a civil authority and can be viewed by it at any time in violation of my rights as an American. I do not care about the email. I CARE ABOUT MY RIGHTS.

[MineralMan]

34. OK.

[WillyT]

21. K & R !!!

[DJ13]

28. So what happens when all net traffic is bounced off servers located outside the US?

[morningfog]

29. More lies uncovered.

It sounds like they data-mine all communications that have crossed the border for keywords. So, an email from one US citizen to another US citizen, where one of them is in another country would be searched if a "target" word was in the email.

We're really chipping away at that which is not searched.