Mediaboss Marketing

5526154

WASHINGTON Congresswants answers about the National Security Agencys expansion of powers in respect to sharing intercepted personal communications with 16 other federal agencies.

President Barack Obama amended an executive order last January that expanded the NSAs abilities to share intelligence.

So that was in the works for a long time. At this point I know that thats out there. Were asking questions about it. I dont think theres anything that that that issue would have to deal with the investigation, but weve asked questions about it, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Thursday night, adding that members on the floor had asked him about it as a result of the coverage of the issue in the news.

Other intelligence committee members in their respective chambers had little to say about the effect the new rule has had. Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro said he did not like to comment off the cuff on about intelligence security matters and the Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking member said he could not comment at the time.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, one of eight congressional leaders who receives exclusive intelligence information,would only say she did not believe the change in the NSAs powers caused recent leaks about sensitive information related to the Trump administration to occur.

I mean, I think that we all dont want everybody in pipeline, so were not having the benefit of information or intelligence to keep the American people safe. But I dont think that has anything to do with leaks, she said.

Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert warned that reversing the NSAs expansion would be more difficult now.

Sure, that could be reversed. But its one of those things where youd be able to put you know that virus back into the little box or is it growing and spread too far, because you know its a legitimate question, Gohmert said.

He explained, Now that the intelligence community has seen what its like to spread what is supposed to be very private confidential classified wiretap information, and thats spread across 16 or 17 other federal agencies. I dont know if they would want to give that up. And even if they change the executive order, if that will be complied with.

Gohmert added, This is a very scary time for those of us who believe in a constitutional democratic republic.

Follow Kerry on Twitter

View post:
Congress Seek Answers On NSA's New Powers | The Daily Caller - Daily Caller

Why it matters to you

Are you curious to know just how many Americans are affected by the NSA's mass-surveillance programs. Well, the agency still isn't talking.

With the legislation that effectively legalizes the National Security Agency mass surveillance programs Prism and Upstream set to expire at the end of 2017, Congress is once again asking for numbers on how many Americans have been surveilled. Just as it has for the past six years, though, the NSA isnt playing ball.

Although most Americans only learned of the countrys large-scale spying operations after NSA whistleblowerEdward Snowden revealed them, Congress has been aware a little longer. Since 2011, several key members have been trying to find out how many Americans the NSA has collected personal information from, but theyvealways been denied, according to Ars Technica.

More:The NSA and GCHQ can see data from your phone when youre 10,000 feet in the air

The reason Congress is making a big case to have those numbers revealed this year is because, as during the Obama administration, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire on December 31. While the Trump administration is keen to see this legislation remain in place, according toThe Intercept, Congress wants the numbers to know just how effective it is and how much useless information is potentially collected from regular citizens.

The NSA says that it cant reveal them, even in top-secret briefings. Just as it did whenSen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) requested them in 2011, 2012 and 2014, it claims that by revealing how many Americans were affected, it would require identifying them. That, it claims, would mean destroying their anonymity as part of the data, thereby making their information more vulnerable.

That sort of circular logic isnt sitting well with senators, norwith privacy champion the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It is urging Congress to allow FISA to expire, thereby making the mass spying conducted by the NSA and other intelligence agencies illegal in the future.

As it stands, the NSA uses Prism to siphon mass data from popular online services like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, while Upstream lets it tap into the fiber cables that transmit the internet across the country and around the world.

Although the NSA and others argue that such technologies are vital in helping protect Americans, many have argued that mass surveillance breaches the Constitution and undermines the idea of a free and democratic society.

See the original post here:
Congress again pushing NSA to reveal number of Americans under surveillance - Digital Trends

Section 702 permits the NSA to collect communications and associated data from targets it reasonably believes to be non-Americans overseas suspected of contact with a foreign power. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/Associated Press

The escalating feud between Donald Trump and US intelligence is now putting the top 2017 legislative priority of the intelligence agencies at risk.

At the end of the year, a broad legal authority permitting sweeping surveillance is set to expire. The National Security Agency considers the authority, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), pivotal to fighting terrorism and stopping espionage. Civil libertarians consider the measure the wellspring of the NSAs Prism and upstream mass communications-data collection unconstitutional.

The typical balance of power on Capitol Hill over surveillance is such that opponents of renewing Section 702 face strong political headwinds. The measure was reauthorized with minimal challenge in 2012.

Now the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee has thrown reauthorization into question after extensive leaking about Trump and Russia that the president and his Capitol Hill allies have blamed on the US intelligence community.

Asked at a Tuesday press conference about the renewal of section 702 in light of ongoing leaks concerning Trump and Russia, Devin Nunes said, I think its very problematic.

He continued: Ive expressed this concern to the IC [intelligence community]. We have sent them many followup questions as it relates to intelligence thats been collected. And we expect prompt answers. I think we also expect unprecedented answers from them of the information that were going to be asking for.

First passed in 2008 to give legal cover to George W Bush-era warrantless surveillance, Section 702 permits the NSA to collect communications and associated data from targets it reasonably believes to be non-Americans overseas suspected of contact with a foreign power, even if they are in communication with Americans. The surveillance does not require a court order specifying its targets, purposes, or time frame; only the reapproval of the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.

NSA interception of communications between Russian officials or suspected operatives and Trumps associates would not necessarily involve using Section 702. The NSA or FBI can acquire such communications under the terms of the original 1978 Fisa law. Because of a provision in the law about understanding the foreign-intelligence value of the intercepted communications, neither agency would necessarily have to purge references to Americans.

It is not only the NSA that values Section 702 ardently. The FBI director, James Comey, last year called the surveillance activities permitted by Section 702 far more important than the bulk domestic phone-records data program that Congress curtailed in 2015. The FBI is permitted to warrantlessly search through the NSAs hoards of foreign-focused data with few restrictions.

Last week, as the House judiciary committee began hearings over the expiring provision, the Trump administration told Reuters it favors Section 702 reauthorization.

We support the clean reauthorization and the administration believes its necessary to protect the security of the nation, an anonymous official said.

Trumps nominee for director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, testified that he agreed Section 702 is the crown jewels of US intelligence and the intelligence community also sees it that way, the entire community.

Throughout Barack Obamas presidency and the Edward Snowden leaks, the vast majority of national-security-focused Republicans embraced the measure without reservation, with Republicans on the intelligence committee leading the way.

Nunes himself has been a full-throated defender of Section 702. Last year, he and colleague Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia took point in opposing a civil-libertarian effort to block it through an amendment to a defense-spending bill.

Citing the then recent case of Orlando nightclub murderer Omar Mateen, Nunes and Westmoreland circulated a letter to colleagues claiming the loss of 702 would deprive the intelligence community of the authorities it needs to detect and stop terrorist attacks.

But since then, Nunes has become a crucial ally to Trump. Nunes served on Trumps transition team, a closeness that has raised questions about Nunes independence as his committee investigates Trump associates ties to Russia.

Nunes has ardently defended Trumps first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and implied without evidence that the intelligence agencies abused their surveillance powers in leaking accounts of Flynns December conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, that proved to be his downfall.

Trump has blamed the intelligence agencies for the leaks, in particular the FBI and NSA, and his administration has suggested that career intelligence officials are in league with former Obama officials. He has recently taken to claiming, baselessly, that Obama ordered Trump to be surveilled, an act that would be illegal if true.

There is no evidence to support that claim of Obama ordering Trump to be wiretapped, a US official told the Guardian over the weekend.

But Nunes has given the accusation credence. His committee on 1 March added the possible leaks of classified information that Trump wants investigated to its inquiry on Russian measures to interfere with the 2016 election, which the intelligence agencies publicly assessed in January were for Trumps benefit.

Typically weve had great trust with our intelligence agencies, Nunes said on Tuesday.

And I continue to have that trust, but we have to verify, in fact, that all of the tools that are in place, that we oversee, are being used ethically, responsibly and by the law. And if anybody has abused those, we want to know about that. And thats part of the reason why its important for us to know whether or not, as some press reports have indicated, the Department of Justice or any other agency tried to get the warrant on anybody related to the Trump campaign or any other campaign for that matter.

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the authority under Section 702 would be preserved when asked by the Guardian on Tuesday about Nunes comments. But he did not rule out potential reforms to the law if necessary.

Section 702 has been a far more impactful and important counter-terrorism program and tool, Schiff said during a press conference on Capitol Hill.

That doesnt mean though that we shouldnt explore whether there are ways to improve any of the protections in existing law or whether there are any changes that we need to make to the structure of the program.

Schiff said the intelligence committee had been engaged in periodic briefings with members, given the law is poised to sunset this year. Should any questions come up in the same context that are pertinent to the Russia investigation, he added, they ought to be answered so members understand how the program works [and] that its conducted in a lawful way.

Link:
Trump v US intelligence: growing feud puts NSA's legislative priority ... - The Guardian

March 9, 2017

A still redacted incident prompted both agencies to discuss concerns about computer hacking into government agencies

In April 1987, the CIAs Chief of Information Systems Security submitted a memo detailing a meeting he had recently had with the Director of the NSAs National Computer Security Security Center.

The meeting had been prompted by an earlier incident, still redacted, that had generated mass confusion.

Hints as to what the incident could have been can be gleaned from the meetings agenda, which tackled concerns about computer hacking into government agencies

and the fact that as of 1987, there were no reporting requirements for cybersecurity incidents at the federal level.

So, a few important takeaways from this meeting that changed the way federal agencies handle cybersecurity FOREVER. One, start reporting those incidents.

Two, start taking advantage of the NSAs existing database of fixes and, you know, apply them.

And three, make staff generally aware that cybersecurity is a thing, which would probably take care of 99% of the problem right there.

The CIA then sealed this historic partnership in the most literal way possible - handing their counterpart at the NSA a literal seal.

The full memo is embedded below.

Image via 20th Century FOX

Original post:
Thirty years ago, the CIA and the NSA had a meeting that changed national cybersecurity - MuckRock

Journalist Jason Leopold (currently in residence at Buzzfeed) has been given the nickname "FOIA terrorist" for his numerous requests and almost as numerous FOIA lawsuits. The government has taken notice of Leopold's activity. The Pentagon once offered Leopold a stack of documents in exchange for him leaving it alone. (He declined.) The FBI played keepaway with James Comey talking points, telling Leopold they were all exempt from disclosure. This obviously wasn't true, as these same talking points had been handed over to Mike Masnick by the agency months prior to the bogus denial it gave Leopold.

Now, it's the NSA using Leopold's "FOIA terrorist" nickname against him. (This is weird because federal employees gave Leopold the "terrorist" nickname. He didn't come up with it himself.) In Leopold's ongoing FOIA lawsuit against the agency, the NSA has asked for an "Open America" stay. What this would do is push Leopold's request back in line with the others the NSA has received. The agency argues that Leopold's decision to file a lawsuit over the agency's lack of a timely response shouldn't give his request precedence over FOIA requests that arrived before his did.

The agency points out its FOIA workload has increased significantly since "a former NSA contractor began a series of unprecedented, unauthorized, and unlawful disclosures" in 2013. The agency still processes thousands of FOIA requests a year, but it's unable to keep up with the increase in FOIA traffic.

What the NSA wants is more time. Three of Leopold's requests -- two of them dating back to 2014 -- are at the center of this lawsuit. The NSA wants to prevent Leopold's lawsuit from letting him jump the queue. From the filing [PDF]:

Given NSAs limited number of FOIA personnel, if the Court orders defendant to process plaintiffs requests at a rate greater than 400 pages per month, the individuals who filed the 1,603 pending requests in NSAs current backlog, many of which were filed well before plaintiffs, will be disadvantaged.

It also wants to process no more than 400 pages per month for him, despite there being more than 20,000 responsive pages.

In defense of its attempt to keep Leopold from litigating his way to the front of the line (and for delaying its already-delayed responses even further), the NSA attempts to use Leopold's press bio against him.

[P]laintiff Jason Leopold is a self-styled FOIA terrorist who, according to a recent press release by his new employer, BuzzFeed.com, makes his living by deluging the federal government with Freedom of Information Act requests. He proudly claims to have brought more FOIA lawsuits by himself than any other news organization except the New York Times.

Again, Leopold may be a "self-styled" FOIA enthusiast, but the government called him a "terrorist" first. And, again, the number of lawsuits means nothing. If the government replied in a more timely fashion, withheld fewer documents, and generally made a better effort at being transparent, it's unlikely Leopold would be chasing every FOIA request with a FOIA lawsuit.

While I agree with the NSA FOIA requesters shouldn't be able to use litigation to move their requests ahead of others (who may not have the financial means to engage in litigation), the fact is without litigation, most government responses would be delayed indefinitely. Agencies are statutorily required to respond within a certain time period. After that time has elapsed, the only option in most cases is to bring a lawsuit. Periodically reminding the agency about your outstanding request has almost zero motivational effect.

Handing out litigation stays doesn't mean requesters who haven't filed a lawsuit will be receiving faster responses. All it means is litigating requesters will be receiving their responses more slowly. The NSA's inference that Leopold's requests are somehow less legit simply because there are so many of them is bogus. I'm sure Leopold would rather have faster request fulfillment than the double-duty of tracking dozens of open requests and multiple concurrent FOIA lawsuits.

If the problem is staffing, there are solutions available -- but agencies have to want to be more responsive, not just shrug their way through FOIA lawsuit filings complaining about how impossible it is to keep up. They have direct lines to the legislators that pass their budgets. If they really wanted to do more, FOIA-wise, they'd have asked for more help already.

Read more from the original source:
NSA Tries To Stonewall Jason Leopold's Requests Because He's A ... - Techdirt