Big Problems

Leaking Sieves

One of the interesting components of the current scandal in the US about government eavesdropping on private citizens is how the story changes.  When the scandal first broke out we were told about metadata: Big Ears was hoovering up the circumstantial data concerning private phone calls and e-mails (when, where, to whom, how long, etc.) but not the actual content itself. 

People who clearly knew better--that is, they were in the know--rushed to assure everyone that metadata was all it was.  Then the whistleblower asserted that he could listen in on any call or review the content of any electronic communication whenever he wanted to.  No warrants or probable cause required.  Rubbish, said the apologists.  Not true. 

But now it emerges that it actually is true.  The whistle blower, Edward Snowden was telling the truth.  Those covering for the government were lying. This, from C/Net

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.  Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."  If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

We notice that the Director of FBI was caught out lying to Congress, or was ignorant on the matter-which would be a gross dereliction of duty. .

Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness. Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."
Is information about that procedure "classified in any way?" Nadler asked. "I don't think so," Mueller replied.  "Then I can say the following," Nadler said. "We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that...In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged this week that the agency's analysts have the ability to access the "content of a call."

Feinstein initially denied that analysts could actually listen to the content of the private communication without warrants and due process.

When a government lies to citizens a line has been crossed.   When the state conspires against citizens another line has been crossed.