Greenwald Claims Low-Level NSA Analysts Can Search Databases Without Oversight

US News • Views: 20,595

On ABC’s This Week…

Video

Today on “This Week,” Glenn Greenwald - the reporter who broke the story about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs - claimed that those NSA programs allowed even low-level analysts to search the private emails and phone calls of Americans.

“The NSA has trillions of telephone calls and emails in their databases that they’ve collected over the last several years,” Greenwald told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “And what these programs are, are very simple screens, like the ones that supermarket clerks or shipping and receiving clerks use, where all an analyst has to do is enter an email address or an IP address, and it does two things.

It searches that database and lets them listen to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you’ve entered, and it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address or that IP address do in the future.”

Greenwald explained that while there are “legal constraints” on surveillance that require approval by the FISA court, these programs still allow analysts to search through data with little court approval or supervision.

“There are legal constraints for how you can spy on Americans,” Greenwald said. “You can’t target them without going to the FISA court. But these systems allow analysts to listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents.”

“And it’s all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst,” he added.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not buying this though.

Video

“It wouldn’t just surprise me, it would shock me,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, said on “This Week” Sunday.

Chambliss said he recently spent time with NSA officials and was assured that the programs Greenwald describes have been exaggerated.

“I was back out at NSA just last week, spent a couple hours out there with high and low level NSA officials,” Chambliss said. “And what I have been assured of is that there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail.”

Chambliss said that any monitoring of emails is purely “accidental.”

“In fact, we don’t monitor emails. That’s what kind of assures me is that what the reporting is is not correct. Because no emails are monitored now,” Chambliss said. “They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. So I feel confident that there may have been some abuse, but if it was it was pure accidental.”

Jump to bottom

87 comments
1 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:00:18am

It’s complete bullshit. Greenwald even admits that it’s illegal for the NSA to do this, then implies they’re doing it anyway just because they can.

2 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:02:59am

I was going to do a post on this, but you got there first so you get the promotion.

3 Kragar  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:03:09am

re: #1 Charles Johnson

It’s complete bullshit. Greenwald even admits that it’s illegal for the NSA to do this, then implies they’re doing it anyway just because they can.

Obviously, Greenwald goes around punching midgets because even though its illegal, he must be doing it because he can.

4 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:05:43am

re: #1 Charles Johnson

It’s complete bullshit. Greenwald even admits that it’s illegal for the NSA to do this, then implies they’re doing it anyway just because they can.

Haven’t we seen this bullshit tactic before? Declaring something to be so, then challenging the target to prove otherwise, knowing they can’t do so without violating the law?

5 Raw Satanic Sewage Recipes  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:08:00am

Can’t believe Saxby Chambliss is the reasonable one in this.

6 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:08:08am

Notice that Greenwald is now expanding the paranoia list to include “Microsoft Word documents.”

7 Mickey being Mickey  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:09:23am

re: #2 Charles Johnson

Sometimes it pays to be bored at work.Thanks for the promotion.

8 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:09:47am

“…these systems allow analysts to listen to whatever emails they want…”

Who knew you could listen to an email?

9 jc717  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:13:05am

How do you ‘Accidentally’ monitor emails? You either have the capability or you don’t. If it can be done ‘accidentally’ then the oversight/permissions restrictions are lacking.

I’d like to know if any analysts or contractors were ever disciplined or fired for improperly accessing NSA’s surveillance data. If there’s no penalties for disregarding regs, then the situation described can occur, even if technically illegal.

10 Iwouldprefernotto  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:13:44am

re: #8 Charles Johnson

“…these systems allow analysts to listen to whatever emails they want…”

Who knew you could listen to an email?

You have to play it backwards.

11 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:20:08am

re: #8 Charles Johnson

Watching phone conversations, listening to emails. Next up, smelling streaming video!

12 Iwouldprefernotto  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:22:07am

I heard the Janitors at NSA can read tea leaves…

13 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:23:44am

[GreenwaldFont]MEE! MEE! IT’S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEE!!!1!!!!![/GreenwaldFont]

14 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:24:14am

And I have co-workers who tell me never go to a .gov website because the government can follow you on the internet.

15 funky chicken  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:26:34am

I used to live in GA and Saxby isn’t bad for a southern GOP guy. Here’s freepers celebrating his retirement:

freerepublic.com

if you google Saxby Chambliss rino you will see pages of the usual suspects whining about him.

16 funky chicken  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:28:19am

My son just bought a “smile, your government is watching you” bumper sticker for his car. I hope the wingnuts don’t realize he’s making fun of them. I’m afraid they might be prone to road rage.

17 prairiefire  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:37:19am

re: #15 funky chicken

I agree, he has surprised me with his occasional ‘reach across the aisle” style. Of course the whackos will be glad when he’s gone.

18 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:41:20am

OH NOES WERE DOOMED!!!11!!

Srsly this is such breaktaking bullshit. Unless the NSA employs about 50 million analysts there is NO FREAKING WAY they would be able to process that much chatter.

19 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:44:15am
20 HappyWarrior  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:46:34am

re: #18 Vicious Babushka

OH NOES WERE DOOMED!!!11!!

[Embedded content]

Srsly this is such breaktaking bullshit. Unless the NSA employs about 50 million analysts there is NO FREAKING WAY they would be able to process that much chatter.

Doing the actual math with NSA employees and USA population, that would mean each NSA employee would have to get the phone records of 7,900 Americans daily. Yeah it’s bullshit. Stupid paranoids.

21 HappyWarrior  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:47:24am

re: #19 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

They have the look of four people who have no idea that they’re going to be the most famous Britons in the world that same time the following year.

22 Varek Raith  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:49:05am

re: #18 Vicious Babushka

They obviously have a quantum computer.

23 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:50:08am

DUDEBROS=TEH MOAST PERSECUTED GROUP EVER EVER!!!1!!!

24 HappyWarrior  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:52:28am

It wouldn’t even be practical to gather up information on every American either. To use an analogy, you’re researching for a research paper, do you want every result you get when you search “American history + WWII”. There’s definitely a potential for abuse but the potential doesn’t happen when every single citizen is screened.

25 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:52:37am

re: #23 Vicious Babushka

DUDEBROS=TEH MOAST PERSECUTED GROUP EVER EVER!!!1!!!

[Embedded content]

Dude! Speak English.

26 Mattand  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:56:01am

re: #14 PhillyPretzel

And I have co-workers who tell me never go to a .gov website because the government can follow you on the internet.

Next time they’re away from their desks, open up their browser’s history and print everything out. Then tell them about your mad hacker skillz and casually mention the sites they’ve been to.

27 Political Atheist  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:56:08am

I think we can easily dispense with this whole argument. Just sunset the Patriot Act. Show a little confidence in our system and out intel people. They can protect us within the bounds of our judicial checks and balances.
Isn’t it past time?

28 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:57:36am
“They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. So I feel confident that there may have been some abuse, but if it was it was pure accidental.”

That’s Chambliss, not Greenwald, admitting that the laws were broken in the past (just because they “could” I suppose), but he’s not been assured by top NSA officials that a stop has been put to that kind of malarkey.

So let’s get this straight - Greenwald is accusing the intel community of violating the law, and that community is denying it.
Here comes Chambliss arguing in defense of that community, but saying they probably once did violate the law, but they have now assured him that they no longer do?
Is that not what this piece is reporting?

If Greenwald had made a statement like the one Chambliss is reported here as saying, essentially admitting illegal activity in the past but now claiming those “bad old days” are over, a lot of folks around here would be howling with derision.

29 jaunte  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:57:38am
“And what these programs are, are very simple screens, like the ones that supermarket clerks or shipping and receiving clerks use, where all an analyst has to do is enter an email address or an IP address, and it does two things.

It searches that database and lets them listen to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you’ve entered, and it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address or that IP address do in the future.”

Evidence?

30 Mattand  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:58:07am

re: #1 Charles Johnson

It’s complete bullshit. Greenwald even admits that it’s illegal for the NSA to do this, then implies they’re doing it anyway just because they can.

Not looking forward to the upcoming This Week in Tech podcast. The whole friggin’ TWiT network has been in full blown Snowden hero worship; this is only gonna make it worse.

What’s interesting is that they never seem to bring up Greenwald and his wannabe supervillian posturing.

31 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 11:59:35am

re: #28 gunnison

Damn, scratch the double negative in the first para - he has been reassured is what it should say obviously.

32 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:01:08pm

re: #28 gunnison

He didn’t admit illegal activity at all. He said it was “accidental.” This is not the same as deliberate law-breaking.

33 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:02:11pm

re: #28 gunnison

That’s Chambliss, not Greenwald, admitting that the laws were broken in the past (just because they “could” I suppose), but he’s not been assured by top NSA officials that a stop has been put to that kind of malarkey.

So let’s get this straight - Greenwald is accusing the intel community of violating the law, and that community is denying it.
Here comes Chambliss arguing in defense of that community, but saying they probably once did violate the law, but they have now assured him that they no longer do?
Is that not what this piece is reporting?

If Greenwald had made a statement like the one Chambliss is reported here as saying, essentially admitting illegal activity in the past but now claiming those “bad old days” are over, a lot of folks around here would be howling with derision.

Is it your suggestion that Chambliss is being lied to and either doesn’t know it or won’t admit it?

34 Eclectic Cyborg  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:02:59pm

Shall we go ahead and start an “How long will Greenwald ride this story?” pool?

Put me down for…March 2015.

35 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:08:17pm

Glenn’s playing super-villain again, by the way:

“It’s an incredibly powerful and invasive tool,” Greenwald said of the program Snowden used, “exactly the type that Mr. Snowden described. NSA officials are going to be testifying before the Senate on Wednesday, and I defy them to deny that these programs work exactly as I’ve just said.”

I DEFY THEM TO DENY THE MIGHTY GREENWALD!

36 HoosierHoops  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:08:28pm

re: #20 HappyWarrior

Doing the actual math with NSA employees and USA population, that would mean each NSA employee would have to get the phone records of 7,900 Americans daily. Yeah it’s bullshit. Stupid paranoids.

Well.. The quote was’ ” The #NSA is literally collecting every phone record of every American every day. ” Collecting is not the same as processing. I’ve posted this before..
Our Company sells high end storage networks to the Gov’t, Banks, eBay etc.All the big boys..After 911 the Gov’t bought a effen ton of storage systems. ( SANS ) We had engineers working 24/7 just to fulfill the orders to different government agencies, DOD, NSA, CIA..There is no doubt in my mind concerning the storage capabilities of the Gov’t.
For instance..You know that huge facility the NSA is building? What do you think they will fill that up with? Cubes? Nope..Storage SANS..Rows and rows and rows of Storage systems…I don’t see any issue about the storage of mind numbing amounts of data..They probably just data mine huge amounts of input with sophisticated software and shit can what they don’t want..I doubt Tier 1 and 2 have much human intervention in the process.

37 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:10:37pm

re: #35 Charles Johnson

Glenn’s playing super-villain again, by the way:

I DEFY THEM TO DENY THE MIGHTY GREENWALD!

“I defy them to prove my negative to my satisfaction!!”

38 twisty  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:12:20pm
And what these programs are, are very simple screens, like the ones that supermarket clerks or shipping and receiving clerks use, where all an analyst has to do is enter an email address or an IP address, and it does two things.

It searches that database and lets them listen to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you’ve entered, and it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address or that IP address do in the future.

All this stinks to high heaven. I do think there should be checks on data collection, but I absolutely hate misinformation and scaremongering. Simple screens? Gasp! Nefarious! These screens should be tiny and complicated and accessible only to a very smart budgerigar trained in COBOL. Punching in an email to pull up all your phone calls (pre-recorded naturally!)? Maintaining a database indexed solely on email and IP? Sounds plausible and makes total sense, since you me & the NSA know that your email, IP, and phone number are permanent forever, completely unchangeable, tied together, and engraved on your birth certificate. This sounds like the nonsense people try to give you at the repair shop if they think you don’t know much about cars. Just enough to scare you.

39 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:14:32pm

re: #38 twisty

All this stinks to high heaven. I do think there should be checks on data collection, but I absolutely hate misinformation and scaremongering. Simple screens? Gasp! Nefarious! These screens should be tiny and complicated and accessible only to a very smart budgerigar trained in COBOL. Punching in an email to pull up all your phone calls (pre-recorded naturally!)? Maintaining a database indexed solely on email and IP? Sounds plausible and makes total sense, since you me & the NSA know that your email, IP, and phone number are permanent forever, completely unchangeable, tied together, and engraved on your birth certificate. This sounds like the nonsense people try to give you at the repair shop if they think you don’t know much about cars. Just enough to scare you.

Agreed - this explanation from Greenwald sounds like bullshit from someone who doesn’t really grasp what he’s describing, but wants to make it sound as scary as possible.

40 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:15:18pm

re: #32 Charles Johnson

He didn’t admit illegal activity at all. He said it was “accidental.” This is not the same as deliberate law-breaking.

OK, I’ll take that point, that is indeed what he’s saying - that NSA operatives “accidentally” accessed information prohibited to them by law.
Ooops.

I’ll still maintain my larger point, which is the final para of my comment;

If Greenwald had made a statement like the one Chambliss is reported here as saying, essentially admitting illegal activity in the past but now claiming those “bad old days” are over, a lot of folks around here would be howling with derision.

(Note that Chambliss is using the word “abuse” in his actual quote. Is that a word you would choose to describe something “accidental”?)

41 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:22:48pm

re: #40 gunnison

You seem to think I’m arguing that everything about the NSA’s surveillance programs is just wonderful. I’m not. I’ve said many times that we should have more transparency and a more adversarial judicial process to oversee these kinds of programs.

So no - I wouldn’t be “howling in derision” at the suggestion that the NSA overstepped some of their boundaries.

42 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:23:10pm

Greenwald’s purpose in doing this is obviously to make money and gain attention. Snowden’s motives are unknowable but may be similar. It is unlikely that either has ideological motives.
Intent is one thing; effect, another.
In the real world it will obviously serve to incite right wing violence. This will probably be limited to various McVeigh style terror attacks but that is bad enough. There is also a possibility of involvement and cooperation by someone in the small but noisy paranoid-right contingent of law enforcement. This could make it much worse, at least in terms of immediate effect.

One RW blogger has dismissed one of my similar warnings as a paranoid rant. Well, good. I will accept that most gun crazed RWNJs are weak minded fantasists who will never take action. One has only to look at the net, though, to see that a sizable part of the right is absolutely obsessed with the idea that the current administration is an unconstitutional and oppressive far left regime, and with consequent preparations for “resistance.” Again, most will do nothing but stroke their guns and bellyache. With millions of nuts out there, though, it is unreasonable to suppose that not even a tiny percentage of them will take action. Even a tiny percentage of millions can be a fairly large number, and it only takes a few.

I’ve noticed that the extreme left seems to be backing away from this issue. Their position, unmitigated paranoia, has not changed but their emphasis has. Have the moonbats realized that they could be targets themselves if part of the far right decides to act on its violence-inciting claims? Of course, even in a worst case scenario, the far left would be hit only a glancing blow, since the RWNJs are generally completely unable to accurately identify the far left. They think Obama is a not so secret communist, after all, and the Tides Foundation is some sort of radical conspiracy to promote Agenda 21. Like their rightwing counterparts, the moonbats have their own myths, though, and one of these is that they are much closer to the progressive and liberal mainstream than they really are. This would cause them to exaggerate the danger they would face from the right.

43 Eclectic Cyborg  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:23:47pm

re: #39 Charles Johnson

Agreed - this explanation from Greenwald sounds like bullshit from someone who doesn’t really grasp what he’s describing, but wants to make it sound as scary as possible.

To keep his face on TV and his bank account bulging.

44 twisty  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:26:51pm

re: #43 Eclectic Cyborg

To keep his face on TV and his bank account bulging.

Funny, how true that is and how well it also matches the subject of the previous article here… can’t trust a showboater or his crocodile tears.

45 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:29:41pm

And by the way, what’s really been happening with the NSA during the Obama administration is that the more intrusive programs have been discontinued and oversight has been tightened. And that’s with a GOP-dominated Congress that has been overwhelmingly voting to extend the Patriot Act and keep these programs going.

46 Ojoe  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:30:16pm

I do not think it is prudent to believe government “reassurances.”

47 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:31:14pm

re: #46 Ojoe

I do not think it is prudent to believe government “reassurances.”

More or less prudent than believing Glenn Greenwald’s claims?

48 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:32:06pm

re: #41 Charles Johnson

You seem to think I’m arguing that everything about the NSA’s surveillance programs is just wonderful. I’m not. I’ve said many times that we should have more transparency and a more adversarial judicial process to oversee these kinds of programs.

So no - I wouldn’t be “howling in derision” at the suggestion that the NSA overstepped some of their boundaries.

Moonbats don’t seem to get that this is not a binary situation, where you either think the NSA is engaged in Orwellian behavior and shutting it down is the only solution or you’re an “Obamabot” who thinks the NSA is being totally truthful and are attacking Greenwald and Snowden in the hopes of quashing “the truth.”

There’s been numerous assertions on this board that in the same vein: “I don’t agree with this program and want it revised, but I don’t see evidence of the abuses alleged.” And Greenwald now seems to be trying to compound on his BS by saying the abuses he alleges are happening and the NSA has to prove to his satisfaction that they’re not, knowing they can’t without divulging classified information to the public.

49 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:34:40pm

re: #41 Charles Johnson

You seem to think I’m arguing that everything about the NSA’s surveillance programs is just wonderful. I’m not. I’ve said many times that we should have more transparency and a more adversarial judicial process to oversee these kinds of programs.

Yes, I know that Charles, and I agree with you on it.
I didn’t mean for my comment regarding the “howls of derision” to look like it applied solely to you, personally - but rather more generally.

I think it important that we all strive to apply the same standards of credibility to assertions made in this mess regardless of where they come from, and apply the same rigor to deconstructing what is being asserted.

On it’s face, Chambliss’s statement is problematic. He’s suggesting the “abuse” was accidental. But if so why does he call it abuse - one might think he’d want to stay away from the word in such circumstances.
He’s also confirming that such data can be accessed, that the ability is there - something Clapper denied publicly some while ago.

Further than that, he’s claiming that the data can be accessed “accidentally”, which implies, I think, that the process of accessing it is not unduly complicated - not much in the way of safeguards in other words.

50 Ojoe  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:34:47pm

I would personally err on the side of caution and assume that they do read e-mails etc, because human nature is not so shiny.

51 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:38:06pm

re: #50 Ojoe

I would personally err on the side of caution and assume that they do read e-mails etc, because human nature is not so shiny.

And let’s likewise err on the side of caution and assume that Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden are very likely making up half the shit they’ve sold to the public, because human nature is not so shiny.

52 Ojoe  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:42:26pm

re: #51 Targetpractice

Caution is to assume they do read, given the two alternatives.

53 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:42:44pm

re: #52 Ojoe

Caution is to assume they do read, given the two alternatives.

That’s not caution, that’s bias.

54 Ojoe  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:43:54pm

re: #53 Targetpractice

That’s not caution, that’s bias.

OK I’m biased then.

55 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:45:52pm

re: #54 Ojoe

OK I’m biased then.

As am I, in this case against media douchebags whose job involves writing stories in such a manner as to draw as many readers as possible, to the point of publishing half-truths and falsehoods with the knowledge that the subjects of such will be unable to counter them without making it looks as if they have something to hide.

56 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:45:55pm

Greenwald now claims that in addition to phone metadata, the NSA is spying on every American’s Microsoft Word documents, and their browser histories.

I’d like to know how the NSA is supposed to be getting your MS Word documents and browser history, since those are stored locally on most people’s systems. Is the NSA now supposed to have the magic power to rummage through any hard drive in any computer? Maybe by using pixie dust?

57 Internet Tough Guy  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:48:15pm

If the NSA can spy on pretty much everything on a computer anywhere, why isn’t everyone in jail?

58 Ojoe  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:48:58pm

re: #57 Internet Tough Guy

Too small jails?

59 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:49:53pm

re: #57 Internet Tough Guy

If the NSA can spy on pretty much everything on a computer anywhere, why isn’t everyone in jail?

Indeed, why has nobody been jailed for “thought crimes”? Where are the people who have been thrown in jail on the grounds that they said something in a phone call or in an email that the government found disagreeable?

In short, where is the evidence of abuse?

60 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:50:24pm

RIP Colonel Bud Day.

USAF COL (ret.) George E. “Bud” Day, a Medal of Honor winner (sic), a WWII Marine, and Vietnam POW, passed away early Saturday morning in Ft. Walton Beach.

His wife, children and grandchildren were present. They had communion before Bud passed away.

The funeral is expected to be Thursday at the Emeral Coast Conference Center with burial at Barancas National Cemetary in Pensacola.

Day was considered by many to be a true war hero.

He was shot down in his Air Force F-100 in August, 1967 and was captured by the North Vietnamese and imprisoned as a POW at the “Hanoi Hilton”.

He spent 5 years and 7 months imprisoned with Navy Pilot John McCain, who also had shot down. The two were cellmates. McCain later went on to be a U.S. Senator. (emphasis added)

In his later years, Colonel Day became involved in rightwing politics, particularly the “swiftboat” attacks on John Kerry in 2004. This is not the time to argue about that, though, and it certainly does not mitigate or alter anything about his heroic and dedicated service to this country.

61 b.d.  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:51:22pm
re: #56 Charles Johnson

Maybe by using pixie dust?

Because of Direct Access .

If Glenn was a food writer he would say that all restaurant employees spit in every single meal.

62 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:51:30pm

re: #57 Internet Tough Guy

If the NSA can spy on pretty much everything on a computer anywhere, why isn’t everyone in jail?

Everyone is. Why do you think unruly inmate Alex Jones calls it “prison planet?”

63 blueraven  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:52:52pm

To believe that the NSA collects data and that there may be some abuse at times, and to want see that fixed is reasonable.

To think that all of our phone calls are recorded and listened to, and that all of our emails are being read is a bit preposterous.

Also I am wondering why, if privacy is the big thing, Greenwald and his supporters are not pushing back on the corporate data mining. To say that corporations don’t hold the same power over us as government is naive.

64 Targetpractice  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:56:34pm

re: #63 blueraven

To believe that the NSA collects data and that there may be some abuse at times, and to want see that fixed is reasonable.

To think that all of our phone calls are recorded and listened to, and that all of our emails are being read is a bit preposterous.

Also I am wondering why, if privacy is the big thing, Greenwald and his supporters are not pushing back on the corporate data mining. To say that corporations don’t hold the same power over us as government is naive.

I’d argue that corporations not only hold the same power, but they have nowhere near the same level of constraint. After all, how does one avoid the increasingly invasive ways that companies are employing to mine our data to better sell us their products? At the pace being set, all these supposed believers in personal privacy are gonna have to become Luddites before long.

65 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:58:37pm

re: #56 Charles Johnson

I’d like to know how the NSA is supposed to be getting your MS Word documents and browser history, since those are stored locally on most people’s systems. Is the NSA now supposed to have the magic power to rummage through any hard drive in any computer? Maybe by using pixie dust?

Yeah, I’d like to know that too. You know way more about this geek shit than me, but I don’t see how the NSA can rummage through my local storage directly either..

Just a a matter of technicalities, now, leaving the tinfoil hat assertions aside for a minute. Can Apple or Microsoft access a local hard drive content when they check for software updates?
Because if they can get it, then it’s no longer just stored locally, right?

What I’m asking, as a technical matter now, not as a political question, is whether it’s possible (I’m asking about possibilities, now, not likelihoods) for some agency to access my local storage via a third party like that?

Browser histories.
Are histories from using Explorer or Safari or Firefox stored anywhere else besides on my hard drive? I use Firefox, for example. Does Mozilla have any way to record a history? I’m asking because I don’t know.

66 jaunte  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:59:16pm

re: #57 Internet Tough Guy

If the NSA can spy on pretty much everything on a computer anywhere, why isn’t everyone in jail?

Or why aren’t the NSA analysts making fortunes in the stock market?

67 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 12:59:47pm

re: #56 Charles Johnson

Greenwald now claims that in addition to phone metadata, the NSA is spying on every American’s Microsoft Word documents, and their browser histories.

I’d like to know how the NSA is supposed to be getting your MS Word documents and browser history, since those are stored locally on most people’s systems. Is the NSA now supposed to have the magic power to rummage through any hard drive in any computer? Maybe by using pixie dust?

good grief, Charles…don’t you remember that FBI hacker warning last year? Obviously, the FBI got access to your hard drives if you fell for it and clicked on the FBI link to check if your computer was vulnerable….

//

68 Internet Tough Guy  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:02:24pm

re: #63 blueraven

Considering how much data mining has been going on, the government may be the last to know what’s going on.

Also, Glenn’s written for Cato. That would certainly account for his shynesss in attacking the corporations…

69 Varek Raith  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:06:23pm

re: #56 Charles Johnson

Greenwald now claims that in addition to phone metadata, the NSA is spying on every American’s Microsoft Word documents, and their browser histories.

I’d like to know how the NSA is supposed to be getting your MS Word documents and browser history, since those are stored locally on most people’s systems. Is the NSA now supposed to have the magic power to rummage through any hard drive in any computer? Maybe by using pixie dust?

A series of tubes.

70 Varek Raith  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:08:30pm

Oh, and Glenn?
We totally don’t notice you escalating the abilities of the NSA on a weekly basis.
Nope.

71 Lancelot Link  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:14:25pm

re: #68 Internet Tough Guy

Sometimes I wonder if GG’s still getting checks from the Koch brothers.

72 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:18:50pm

re: #65 gunnison

Basically, the answer to all your questions is “no.” None of that is happening and if it were, it would be impossible to keep secret.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Greenwald may have been simply bullshitting.

73 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:22:32pm

re: #64 Targetpractice

I’d argue that corporations not only hold the same power, but they have nowhere near the same level of constraint. After all, how does one avoid the increasingly invasive ways that companies are employing to mine our data to better sell us their products? At the pace being set, all these supposed believers in personal privacy are gonna have to become Luddites before long.

This seems hard for the younger generation to understand. Easier for the older ones who view the Intertubes as one big party line.

74 lawhawk  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:27:17pm

re: #56 Charles Johnson

Greenwald now claims that in addition to phone metadata, the NSA is spying on every American’s Microsoft Word documents, and their browser histories.

I’d like to know how the NSA is supposed to be getting your MS Word documents and browser history, since those are stored locally on most people’s systems. Is the NSA now supposed to have the magic power to rummage through any hard drive in any computer? Maybe by using pixie dust?

If files are shared on Cloud drives, then it’s conceivable that the companies operating them might be obligated to provide access via warrants. But most people aren’t using cloud drives to store their files, their browser histories, etc.

Employers and ISPs have all that information - and employers can do a whole lot more with the data than the NSA can; they can fire people for unauthorized use/access for computers tied to their networks.

75 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:27:45pm

re: #73 Decatur Deb

This seems hard for the younger generation to understand. Easier for the older ones who view the Intertubes as one big party line.

Indeed! I should probably stop being stunned at the youngers who somehow believe every stupid thing that they post on Twitter on Facebook is “private”.
Just goes to show that just because they grew up with technology, some still don’t have the first clue as to how it actually works.

76 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:32:16pm

re: #75 Backwoods_Sleuth

Indeed! I should probably stop being stunned at the youngers who somehow believe every stupid thing that they post on Twitter on Facebook is “private”.
Just goes to show that just because they grew up with technology, some still don’t have the first clue as to how it actually works.

They’re not experienced enough to understand how people work. The other error is looking at THE GOVERNMENT as some giant hive-minded monolith. On any given day most of the Government has no idea of what the rest of the Government is doing. No matter how well directed, noble and law-abiding any administration wants to be, there can never be a guarantee against the next rogue Lieutenant Colonel in some deep basement.

77 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 1:42:32pm

re: #72 Charles Johnson

Basically, the answer to all your questions is “no.” None of that is happening and if it were, it would be impossible to keep secret.

OK.
I don’t think it’s happening either, but if you’re saying it’s technically impossible, which is what my questions were about, then obviously it’s not and never will.
But then you say “if it were”.
Which implies it’s not technically impossible.
So I’m confused.
Likelihoods aside, and the ability to keep it under wraps aside, is it technically possible or not?

I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Greenwald may have been simply bullshitting.

That, or he knows even less about this shit than I do, but thinks he doesn’t.
Either way, these specific assertions, as they stand, completely lack plausibility.

78 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 2:02:09pm

re: #77 gunnison

Of course it’s not “technically impossible” to do these kinds of things. But it’s not something that is done routinely.

I have something installed on my Mac called Little Snitch, a sort of hopped-up firewall that monitors everything going in or out of the computer, and I have it set up to alert me if anything unusual goes on. That’s why I said it would be impossible to keep it secret if this was routinely going on, in every American’s computer.

Greenwald’s claims are ridiculously exaggerated at best, and outright fabrications at worst.

79 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 2:34:48pm

re: #78 Charles Johnson

OK
Thanks for taking the time with that.

That Greenwald is prone to borderline hysteria, hyperbole and repetitively turgid prose is not exactly a secret, in fact they’re part of his schtick.

80 Samsonn  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 3:17:16pm

re: #79 gunnison

With respect to your Microsoft word updates - you download those. For someone to remotely gain access to your hard drive, they would need to upload information. Certain software programs, for example MS Word, have established settings wherein they upload data to Microsoft, conveying to the company when you need an update. The same with Windows. You can disable these settings - if for example you have an illegally downloaded copy of MS Word, as many people do, you will disable the updates. The reason? You don’t want your fake/already used serial/license code to be automatically uploaded and checked against a Microsoft algorithm, which will then determine it is fake or already used. That would stop you using MS Word.

The same works for any software program. You can use a firewall to inhibit outgoing data, and in fact you can, in Windows, use certain settings to prevent or allow incoming or outgoing data from any program.
With enough tinkering, you can select which data goes out from your computer and which data comes in.

But the real fallacy Glenn is espousing is this: even if the NSA did, somehow, collect all this data, which doesn’t seem credible to me….what is the purpose if they don’t analyse it? They would need to employ literally millions of analysts - the numbers are absurd.

Think of it this way - let’s say 1/3 Americans send 1 email, every day, per week. That’s 100 million * 7 = 700 million emails per week. Let’s say it takes an average analyst 1 minute to read that email, to figure out if it’s pertinent to terrorist/illegal activity, if it’s non-pertinent, or if it’s just a Nigerian scam or Viagra scam. So 700 million emails / 1 email/min = 700 million minutes needed to read all those emails.
So how many analysts would need to be employed by the NSA ? Ignoring, BTW, all other forms of web traffic that are supposedly collected (video, audio, now Greenwald claims hard drive access so, every single file type on your Windows/mac/Linux/Unix/whatever).
(700 million minutes / 1 minute/analyst) (assuming each analyst takes 1 min to read each email) = 700 million analysts would be needed to process all that data. That’s more than the population of the US. That’s almost a sixth of the world’s entire population.
So unless they just gather, and store all the information - which is already difficult because one is able to block incoming and outgoing traffic from their computer, and in fact, one can monitor all incoming and outgoing traffic from their computer using a program like Charles mentioned - then these claims are absurd.
And if they DO somehow gather all this data - what’s the f***ng point? Why have masses, and masses of data, that they are collecting at a rate, and at an amount faster than they’ll EVER be able to process? This isn’t like the human genome, where we have lots of dedicated data analysts doing BLAST searches. This is vastly more complex - because genes can only consist of four base pairs. Emails, while they do have patterns, will be difficult to categorise into fewer than four categories.
It would be a senseless waste of time to collect more data than could ever possibly be analysed. And to reassure you - even if your data is being collected, the odds of it being analysed are particularly small. I could do a dodgy calculation for that, I think, but it is too early in the morning.

81 Samsonn  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 3:34:38pm

Also, think about the RATE of data collection. If using the numbers above (hypothetically speaking) - they collected 700 million emails per week. Let’s say they actually have 1 million analysts working on these, all day, every day, 7 days a week, 365 per year. That means they’re able to process (assuming each analyst analyses 1 email per minute) 7 million emails per week.
So 700 - 7 = 693 million emails per week accrue (are unprocessed).

Week 1 = 693 million emails
Week 2 = 693 + 693 = 1386 million emails collected and unprocessed by week 2 end.

With 52 weeks per year, what is the absurdly high number of emails collected and UNPROCESSED at the end of each year? (693)*(52) = 36 036 million emails unprocessed at the end of each year. I think that’s approx 36 billion emails. In two years, you get 72 billion unprocessed emails. Unlooked at. Unprocessed. So the numbers become staggering. And these are very conservative estimates. They don’t account for times of high email traffic, they don’t account for the other types of data supposedly collected by the NSA. The claims are absurd. And also - if they’re collecting these staggering amounts of data, when does it become obsolete?
Say they miss an email, in these billions per year, that contains information on a terrorist attack. The next year they find it - is it obsolete? Is the threat still pertinent? How about if the threat is 10 years old? How about if it’s hard to say if the email is a threat or not? Remember, the 9/11 guys talked about “give my regards to the Professor” and “I’m seeing my girlfriend tomorrow” and used all sorts of rudimentary but nonetheless, concealing language. When, and if the NSA analysts - swamped by data - do find one of these emails, how do they determine it’s utility in threat-prevention? Use all emails a week old? a month old? A year? They’d need to analyse them as they came in! Storing them is pointless.

So if we’ve determined that
(a) they can’t analyse all the data
(b) there’s no point storing all the data
(c) to actually assess threats they’d need to monitor emails in real time or at least, within days or weeks of threats being made

then to me, the conclusion is, it would be a waste of time and space, and probably futile, to try and collect everyone’s data, all the time. There’s too much data.

82 Norbrook  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 3:51:53pm

re: #77 gunnison

OK.
I don’t think it’s happening either, but if you’re saying it’s technically impossible, which is what my questions were about, then obviously it’s not and never will.
But then you say “if it were”.
Which implies it’s not technically impossible.
So I’m confused.
Likelihoods aside, and the ability to keep it under wraps aside, is it technically possible or not?

There’s a difference between “technically possible” (or more correctly, theoretically possible) and “practically possible.” The answer is yes, it is “technically” possible, but it isn’t practically possible, particularly without anyone noticing it. The issue is quite simple: Bandwidth. It costs, and Microsoft and any other company aren’t in business to eat that sort of cost, let alone an ISP. Consider the amount of information on most people’s computers, together with the speed of most people’s connections. In order to “read everything on someone’s computer” you’re basically positing the ability to have that computer upload several gigabytes of information, without your noticing it or getting billed for that use. Given how ISP’s are busily coming up with tiered systems to charge people for use, and limits on the technology to begin with, it’s just not something that’s realistic. But it “sounds realistic.”

83 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:34:53pm

re: #81 Samsonn

Also, think about the RATE of data collection. If using the numbers above (hypothetically speaking) - they collected 700 million emails per week. Let’s say they actually have 1 million analysts working on these, all day, every day, 7 days a week, 365 per year. That means they’re able to process (assuming each analyst analyses 1 email per minute) 7 million emails per week.

Thanks for the detailed responses.
I totally get that the NSA, or any agency, cannot possibly employ enough people to actually read everyone’s emails.
But they can scan both the metadata and the content electronically for keywords, phrases, “suspicious” encryption, addressee patterns, who knows what, and with sophisticated filters arrange to have “suspect” emails spit out for another level of inspection.
Then, if they have “collected” everything, they can go back through a particular persons email history and examine it the old-fashioned way with a human being.
The technology is there to do that right now, is it not? So although your math is thorough, I think it’s based on an invalid assumption that an actual person is required to do the real time monitoring.

And the same is true with voice recognition software, which can automatically scan telephone conversations in similar fashion.
So the technical capacity to monitor emails and phone conversations in real time is here already, it’s not science fiction, and it doesn’t require that they employ half the nation to spy on the other half.

I do remember reading recently that work is proceeding on acquiring similar auto-scanning technology for digital video, though that’s much more complicated and they’re not there yet so far as anyone knows. But if it can be done, it’ll happen, sure as eggs.

They’re not building that enormous center out in Utah for nothing, right? Obviously it’s to increase their capacity for analysis and storage. What else could it possibly be for?

84 gunnison  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:41:05pm

re: #82 Norbrook

But it “sounds realistic.”

I think I have been pretty clear in every comment that I thought it did not sound realistic.
But I was interested to know what is possible just as a matter of technics, since it’s not a topic I know a great deal about.

I’ve also been clear in this thread and elsewhere on LGF about what I think of Greenwald’s propensity for self-promotion, arrogance and hyperbole.

The fact that he can be an asshole doesn’t mean Clapper didn’t lie to a congressional committee.
He did.
Which is also against the law.

85 OhNoZombies!  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:44:49pm

Late to the party, I know, but I have t add my 2 cents.

Greenwald is about making money. This story is a gold mine to him because it can get as big as he wants it to, since there’s just enough truth in it to make it believable.
Also, it feeds off of technology driven, self importance laced throughout our culture.
Especially youth culture I’m thinkin’.
In other words, the government is watching me because, well, I’m me, and everything I do and say is worth attention.

Oh, and I’m going to be famous after I post some crap on YouTube…

86 Ah_Yup  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 6:53:24pm

You know the worst thing is it’s hard to decide which one is more full of shit. Greenwald’s claims are obviously hysterical hyperbole. I particularly like the way he implies for the layman who doesn’t know that the NSA has access to your word documents. Not unless they have a trojan virus on your computer they don’t. He really needs to run all of his claims by a Sys Admin who knows what they are talking about because he just sounds illiterate.

And Chambliss, call me a cynic but I would be absolutely shocked if there was no abuse or over reach by the NSA. This is why we don’t just automatically trust the government. Aside from everything else obviously low level employees have access to stuff or we wouldn’t have this problem because Snowden would not have this problem because Snowden never would have had all these crucial documents to give to a total douche like Greenwald.

87 Ah_Yup  Sun, Jul 28, 2013 7:30:01pm

re: #83 gunnison

They could possibly have a database of phone calls or something but the implication of what Greenwald is saying is in fact technically impossible because there isn’t enough bandwidth to do it. They’d have to have their own network as large as all the major ISP’s to get it all back to Utah. They certainly have the ability to monitor select people but not everything and everybody en masse.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 90 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0