"Key Surveillance Laws"

While trying to explain away cases of agents spying on lovers and spouses, the NSA slipped into babble recently:

NSA said in a statement Friday that there have been “very rare” instances of willful violations of any kind in the past decade, and none have violated key surveillance laws. “NSA has zero tolerance for willful violations of the agency’s authorities” and responds “as appropriate.”

Willful violations? Zero tolerance? What do those phrases mean to the NSA? I especially want to know about these "key surveillance laws." They sound important. I assume they're written down somewhere. And if spying on one's lover doesn't violate them, then what does?

The Independent Has a Second Source and They Don't Want You to Know it

The Independent today revealed the existence of an internet surveillance facility operated by the UK in the Middle East. The carefully-worded article doesn't credit a source but says the information "was contained in the 50,000 GCHQ documents that Mr Snowden downloaded during 2012."

As others have pointed out, this is a clever way of implying that Snowden is the source for the story. Unfortunately for The Independent, Snowden is still very much alive and capable of issuing statements, which is exactly what he did:

I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent.

Uh oh. The Independent is suddenly without a source. They WANT you to think it's Edward Snowden, but it's not. So who is it?

Snowden himself offers an explanation:

It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act.

Is he right? Who knows. One thing is certain: The Independent is being incredibly manipulative and secretive about its source, and that fact alone should be deeply troubling to everyone. There is a Second Source out there for the NSA leaks, and the only people who know about it -- The Independent -- don't want you to know about it. Why?

Please Trust NSA

The NSA Hubbub Continues

Techdirt has become one of my favorite sources for surveillance news lately, thanks in large part to Mike Masnick's tireless coverage of every possible news angle. Some highlights include:

• Rep. Morgan Griffith: If Latest Leaks On NSA Had Come Out Earlier, NSA-Defunding Amendment Would Have Passed
• Wyden And Udall: Latest Revelations Of Abuses 'Are Just The Tip Of A Larger Iceberg'

The tide is quickly turning, but you can't expect the intelligence community to admit that yet. They have a knack for stubbornness and for making absurd and untruthful claims about their activities. Think of Clapper's statement to congress, his many explanations for that statement, and now this doozy from the NSA's director of compliance, John DeLong, via the Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

"NSA has a zero-tolerance policy for willful misconduct," Mr. DeLong said. "None of the incidents that were in the document released were willful." Mr. DeLong reported, however, "a couple" of willful violations in the past decade. He didn't provide details.

Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell Sen. Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, who really ought to know:

As I have said previously, the committee has never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes.

But of course, the "truthfulness" of that statement depends on one's own definition of "inappropriate purposes." In Feinstein's mind, there might be a difference between intentional abuses conducted for appropriate purposes and intentional abuses conducted for inappropriate purposes. I can't imagine what that difference would be, but I can sure imagine someone defending their words with such a distinction and getting away with it, a la Clapper. That's just the how the world works now.

An important message from the NSA

Meanwhile, congress is (surprisingly) keeping up the good fight. Sen. Pat Toomey issued a statement yesterday that read in part:

The latest revelations about privacy violations by the NSA raise important questions and warrant a congressional hearing.

In other words, the Amash Amendment, narrowly defeated in congress, isn't dead yet. The scale is tipping. Many representatives, including Rep. Amash, are raring for a second go.

Now Vs. Near Future