General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNSA statements to The Post
By Barton Gellman, Published: August 15
The National Security Agency offered these comments on The Washington Posts article about privacy violations.
Aug. 14
In July 2012, Director of National Intelligence (James R.) Clapper declassified certain statements about the governments implementation of Section 702 in order to inform the public and congressional debate relating to reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). Those statements acknowledged that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had determined that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The FISCs finding was with respect to a very specific and highly technical aspect of the National Security Agencys 702 collection. Once the issue was identified and fully understood, it was reported immediately to the FISC and Congress. In consultation with the FISC, the Department of Justice, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence worked to address the concerns identified by the FISC by strengthening the NSA minimization procedures, thereby enhancing privacy protections for U.S. persons. The FISC has continued to approve the collection as consistent with the statute and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Aug. 12
Obama administration statement on compliance incident statistics.
The NSA communications office, in coordination with the White House and Director of National Intelligence, declined to answer questions about the number of violations of the rules, regulations and court-imposed standards for protecting the privacy of Americans, including whether the trends are up or down. Spokesmen provided the following prepared statement.
Looking over a 3-year period that includes the 1st first quarter 2010 through second quarter 2013, the data for that quarter are above the average number of incidents reported in any given quarter during that period. The number of incidents in a given quarter during that 3-year period ranged from 372 to 1,162. A variety of factors can cause the numbers of incidents to trend up or down from one quarter to the next. They include, but are not limited to: implementation of new procedures or guidance with respect to our authorities that prompt a spike that requires fine tuning, changes to the technology or software in the targeted environment for which we had no prior knowledge, unforeseen shortcomings in our systems, new or expanded access, and roaming by foreign targets into the U.S., some of which NSA cannot anticipate in advance but each instance of which is reported as an incident. The one constant across all of the quarters is a persistent, dedicated effort to identify incidents or risks of incidents at the earliest possible moment, implement mitigation measures wherever possible, and drive the numbers down.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-statements-to-the-post/2013/08/15/f40dd2c4-05d6-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html
FYI: Working to address compliance issues and strengthening the minimization procedures is not an impeachable offense.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)prove obfuscation, it maybe that you're ignoring the facts. You should read the full point at the snip you posted.
Cha
(296,780 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)sigmasix
(794 posts)to the folks looking desperately for confirmation of their religiously held belief that we are all living in a "stasi-like" society that features an almost god-like level of control over all Americans (except the truthers, of course- they'll never be sheeple) So many left and right wing conspiracy theories rely on the same hatred for government and support for paranoid narratives.
OPs like this reveal the simple stupidity and lies of the Hair On Fire brigade- why wont they read any proof that doesn't jibe with their paranoid narratives? Why do they insist it's all lies when the documents don't affirm their pre-conceived ideas about "what is really happening"? I understand the desire to be right, but the proof all points to a much less sinister narrative of spying on Americans than the one promulgated by teabaggers and leftist looney truthers.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the NSA, it's about trying to prove Obama deserves to be impeached.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)smelly shits.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The conflating of incidents that occured prior to 2009 with those under this administration is deliberate.
On the NSA, this is what happens when reports conflate the Bush and Obama administrations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023471576
Cha
(296,780 posts)said so!!!111
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Besides you?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's not just me: http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023469577#post15
SunSeeker
(51,504 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)What exactly are you referring to?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...in the thread you cite.
TTFN
ProSense
(116,464 posts)What does this mean when Watergate is being discussed: "I don't want to see the first Black President of the US go down on something this stupid."
Don't pretend that isn't the gist of that entire subthread.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...in another thread, which you proceeded to make explicit. I readily admit that was reasonable, within that thread.
I have to wonder, though, why you brought up the term in this thread? It seems to me you are trying to present opposing viewpoints as being based on a desire to impeach the President, for which I have seen no evidence. One poster, in one thread, does not count as evidence -- except for that poster.
Perhaps you should consider your tactics more carefully. You're planting the idea in this thread, when there was no need to do so. It's kind of like telling kids not to put beans in their ears: it isn't really useful, and it gives them an idea they may not have had before. Next thing you know, you have to call the doctor because your kid has a bean stuck in his ear.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I have to wonder, though, why you brought up the term in this thread? It seems to me you are trying to present opposing viewpoints as being based on a desire to impeach the President, for which I have seen no evidence. One poster, in one thread, does not count as evidence -- except for that poster."
...going to pretend it was "one" poster? My point, which still stands, is that there are people implying that impeachment maybe in order.
This has been ongoing for the last two months.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022960646
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...rather than use an OP to bring it up yourself, IMO. My objection is twofold: 1 - your bringing it up in an OP merely makes it a more visible proposition; and 2 - your OP tends to imply there is a large number of posters here who are calling for impeaching President Obama, which is not the case.
But you can of course do what you want. You answered my question; I was unaware that people were bringing it up. Again, speaking for myself, impeachment is the last thing on my mind in all of this.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Even in that link. Saying think? My my my...
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)All damage control parties head to the starboard side bilges! All damage control parties report to the starboard side bilges!
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)+1000
Pro missed that part at the end:
We're in the no spin zone, folks!!
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)I would apologize to the Post
We would all have to say that mistakes were made in terms of comments.
This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.
If my answers sound confusing, I think they are confusing because the questions are confusing and the situation is confusing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Ziegler#Notable_quotes
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)K & R