How Many Americans Does the N.S.A. Spy On? A Lot of Them
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/how-many-americans-does-the-nsa-spy-on-a-lot-of-them.htmlJune 21, 2013
How Many Americans Does the N.S.A. Spy On? A Lot of Them
Posted by Amy Davidson
If you are writing an e-mail, and hope to make it clear to any National Security Agency analysts who might be reading it that you are an American, it won’t help to mention that you were just at a Shake Shack or recently bought a Rawlings baseball glove, or to cite anything that you learned in a middle-school history class. According to documents published by the Guardian and the Washington Post, the N.S.A.’s “minimization procedures”—which are supposed to keep it from spying on Americans—include the note, “A reference to a product by brand name, or manufacturer’s name or the use of a name in a descriptive sense, e.g. ‘Monroe Doctrine,’ is not an identification of a United States person.”
But what is? Maybe American name brands aren’t enough—there is a Shake Shack in Dubai, as it happens—but reading the new documents, which include a secret FISA court order that amounts to a gift certificate for one year of warrant-free spying, it becomes clear that many more “United States persons” have their communications monitored, and on much vaguer grounds, than the Obama Administration has acknowledged. “What I can say unequivocally is that, if you are a U.S. person, the N.S.A. cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the N.S.A. cannot target your e-mails,” the President said earlier this week. A 2009 memorandum signed by Eric Holder establishes a broader criteria, referring to people “reasonably believed” to be located abroad. That reasonable belief, as it turns out, can be quite shaky.
Among the information that the N.S.A. is told to use includes having had a phone or e-mail connection with a person “associated with a foreign power or foreign territory,” or being in the “‘buddy list’ or address book” of such a person. It won’t be lost on anyone that Americans whose families include recent immigrants will be disproportionately vulnerable to such intrusions. (So, incidentally, will journalists.) The defaults in the analysis are telling: a person
whose location is unknown, will not be treated as a United States person unless such person can be positively identified as such, or the nature or circumstances of the person’s give rise to a reasonable belief that such person is a United States person.
= new reply since forum marked as read
From the article:
"...The documents note that the private data of Americans that the N.S.A. can hold on to “include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on NSA’S ability to filter communications.” In other words, if it fails to fine-tune its targeting, it can keep what it sweeps up anyway. Also, if the N.S.A. decides on its own that there is an “immediate threat,” it can temporarily put all these minimization procedures aside and figure it out later.
These documents were classified: they shouldn’t have been. The N.S.A. can look for certain secrets and keep them. But Americans shouldn’t have to listen to the President with an ear for what words like “targeted” really mean. (Even by that standard, the Administration has not been forthright.) We get to know what the rules are—so we, and not just a secret court, can tell when they are being broken."
--
yep
