Nor should you, given your supposed affiliation with the NSA.
>It's not all kept.
More is kept than phone/email metadata, which even by themselves, are too much.
>You're confusing NSA with FBI.
No I'm not. Where does the FBI, DEA, IRS get the data? You're ignoring the Parallel Discovery disclosures and the exception contained in the PATRIOT act that allows the NSA to retain information that’s "accidentally" collected on Americans. "This information is generally destroyed, but there are some important exceptions. For example, if an intercepted communication contains information about a crime being committed, the NSA may retain the information and turn it over the law enforcement."[1]
>I do have proof. I was in the NSA and I took the yearly FISA training. NSA analysts take FISA violations very seriously, and always err on the side of US person if in doubt. Why? Because collecting on a US person is the quickest way to get fired.
1. A singular example of "lawful" behavior from an NSA analyst isn't proof of anything remarkable, even if I choose to take you at your word, I would expect a majority to behave in good faith. I, like nearly every person who has a job take yearly training for various compliance functions at my employer, those simple annual compliance courses cannot actually ensure compliance, nor do they address the constitutionality of NSA programs as a whole. Also, Milgram demonstrates the ease of obtaining compliance from employees without regard to the ethical nature of the activity to be performed.
2. Show some proof. Your appeal to authority rests on your assertion that you were "in the NSA." So, you have at least two claims to show proof for, first, that you were an NSA employee with access to information regarding compliance, and some credible or authenticated compliance data supporting your claim. You may not like my request that you perform some impossible feat. My request is no less ridiculous than your expectation that I believe any of the unsupported (and false[2]) claims you've made.
>Awesome. NSA does not watchlist people.
1. Another unsupported claim. 2. I never said that NSA does, I said that the NSA passes information to domestic law enforcement; though I find it hard to believe that there are no target lists of any kind.
>All in all, I find your response to be composed of pure internet anger and no factual content.
I find your participation in discussions regarding NSA/gov't surveillance offensive and lacking in credibility without advance disclosure of your past/current affiliation.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/25/h...
[2] Even if you are a former NSA employee, I do not believe that you were allowed to retain NSA data that would support your claim.
Your unsubstantiated claims do not constitute "proof". Anybody can claim to have worked for the NSA. And, if anything, for anyone to "out" themselves as former NSA, strikes me as fairly suspicious, since ex-NSA people (other than high profile ones like the former director) don't seem to be in a hurry to identify themselves as a rule.
And, if you think about it, why would a former NSA person out themselves? They're just making themselves a target by doing so. After all, why would the bad guys now come and take you, chain you up in a basement somewhere, and interrogate you until you reveal everything you know about the US intelligence community?
NSA analysts take FISA violations very seriously, and always err on the side of US person if in doubt.
That does not seem to jibe with the details reported here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-br...
How would you explain that discrepancy between your claims, and those of the WaPo? Note that the WaPo story does include at least a degree of hard evidence, in the form of documentation.
It's not really my concern whether or not you believe what I say, as you are not my target audience. You are already convinced of your rightness and my wrongness. I'm typing to the people who want actual facts to back the discussion.
>That does not seem to jibe with the details reported here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-br.... How would you explain that discrepancy between your claims, and those of the WaPo? Note that the WaPo story does include at least a degree of hard evidence, in the form of documentation.
What they don't post is how many firings/missed promotions that has led to. Each incident would be just one phone number or piece of information, so in the case of the "20"->"202" mixup, they could have targeted 300 phone numbers and now that's 300 incidents. If that was a contractor that was responsible for that, they're already gone. If it was a government employee, they're likely not an analyst anymore.
The Washington Post's story only backs what I said. If the NSA was so trigger-happy to violate American rights, why would they even keep track of the number of violations? Bragging rights at the end of the year? In the example they used, they were targeting Egyptian citizens, and the US phone numbers got caught in the crossfires. Sounds to me like people legitimately trying to do their jobs, and human error working against them.
Don't forget to disclose any conflict of interest, ie your former, and perhaps even your current employers! Also, instead of mere claims of fact, try supporting the claims with credible data.
>so in the case of the "20"->"202" mixup.... Sounds to me like people legitimately trying to do their jobs,
Sounds to me like the kind of thing that an automated system ought to be able to flag/prevent.
And you still haven't explained why anybody would accept your unsubstantiated assertions as fact.
What they don't post is how many firings/missed promotions that has led to.
Who cares? That the incidents are happening at all is the point.
If that was a contractor that was responsible for that, they're already gone. If it was a government employee, they're likely not an analyst anymore.
Again, assertion which might be true, or might be made up from whole cloth. Without some sort of evidence, your audience - regardless of who they are - have no way of evaluating the veracity of your claims.
If the NSA was so trigger-happy to violate American rights, why would they even keep track of the number of violations?
Fair point. I'd suspect it's because they have to maintain at least a veneer of legitimacy in order to avoid having Congress starting to dig deeper and deeper into their operations, and potentially even pull the plug altogether.
>You aren't the voice of reason. You're the guy with his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed. You are the worst possible neighbor to have in a democratic society. Until you are directly and personally affected, you will continue to argue that those who oppose surveillance are all "unreasonable" to expect the gov't to follow the law, or for even "believing" that the gov't does not, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Not going to touch that one.
>The NSA keeps _all_ of the source data. A file can be built at any instant by a simple query. The distinction of not having a "file" at some particular moment is without meaning. One might even argue that the architecture of the systems are designed to allow this "lie" to be told. At the very least, officials have demonstrated their willingness to exploit this semantic loophole, which by the strict rules of logic, evaluates as "true" but which all honest people consider "lying through your teeth".
It's not all kept.
>The NSA passes evidence of non-terrorism, non-national-security, ie domestic crimes to domestic law enforcement on its own accord, as has been reported widely in the press. Additionally, US intelligence services have in the past been caught passing inside information to commercial interests, also well beyond the scope of "strictly foreign surveillance".
You're confusing NSA with FBI.
>You have no proof of that. Even given the little that is actually revealed about the NSA so far, it is not reasonable to claim that the NSA has followed the rules in this particular scenario, given the many examples of rule-breaking, and the NSA's demonstrated contempt of FISC rulings.
I do have proof. I was in the NSA and I took the yearly FISA training. NSA analysts take FISA violations very seriously, and always err on the side of US person if in doubt. Why? Because collecting on a US person is the quickest way to get fired.
>I can say with complete confidence that you are wrong again. Laura Poitras, Jacob Applebaum, many others have been receiving extralegal searches, seizures of their electronic devices at the border for years. Just a few weeks ago, a family received a visit by virtue of their internet searches. Even if you were correct, it is an extreme threshold for opposition to gov't lawbreaking. You think that no person should make a fuss, until the speech of "white suburban bloggers" is targeted?
Now you're confusing NSA with NCTC http://www.nctc.gov/about_us/how_we_do.html. Awesome. NSA does not watchlist people. That's a combination of the Terrorist Screening Center (FBI) and NCTC. That being said, Laura Poitras and Jacob Applebaum aren't going to be on that list unless they're somehow funding Hezbollah.
All in all, I find your response to be composed of pure internet anger and no factual content.