I'm a former Arabic linguist at the NSA, and I've argued in another post that Snowden didn't entirely understand the documents he stole. This is certainly another case of that, and the WP's title seems to want readers to also misunderstand the true significance of the leaked document.
Let's parse just the title:
"AUDIT FINDS"
The word "FINDS" for many people implies the discovery of
"BROKE PRIVACY RULES"
Again, the word "BROKE" is interpreted by most people to imply that someone knowingly did something they know they were not supposed to do. Players in sports "BREAK THE RULES" in order to win, but they hope they don't get caught. The exact opposite is true of the activities described in this document.
The report carefully and comprehensively describes exactly how technical and human errors resulted in the inadvertent collection of electronic communication associated with US Citizens. So this document certainly proves that the NSA is NOT, in fact, engaging in wholesale, widespread surveillance of Americans.
A reader pointed out that I did not provide an alternative to this title. The most accurate description of the incidents the NSA disclosed in this internal audit would be:
VIOLATED EO 12333 CHARTER
Readers may be surprised, given my overall positive tone towards the NSA, that I would use the word VIOLATED. But, despite all other nuances, VIOLATED does not imply cognizant wrong-doing the same way BROKE THE RULES does. The NSA is charged, per Executive Order 12333 to collect foreign intelligence. Any collection of the communications of a US Citizen, even if inadvertent or through human error or, in the case of the S2A51 office, insufficient review of targets, is a violation of that charter. Full disclosure of such violations is required by law, and these leaked documents demonstrate that the NSA exercises due diligence in this area.
Later in the article there is a link to another leaked document, with the title:
FISA Court finds illegal surveillance
Again this title is quite misleading if you read the actual leaked document in question. "FINDS" implies the NSA was hiding it and FISA found them out.
illegal surveillance
Read the document. The word "ILLEGAL" does not appear. In fact, FISA rules that certain collection methods were "deficient on statutory and constitutional grounds." But this followed the NSA clearly submitting all of its activities to the FISA court for examination. It is quite telling, in fact, that the FISA court did not order the immediate termination of this collection, rather gave the NSA time to pursue other approaches. The NSA quite deferentially states here that they will submit their proposed solutions to the judge and then comply with whatever the judge decides. The title implies that the NSA was doing something illegal and got caught. Rather, the document describes an agency under strict oversight adjusting its functions in accordance with deferential respect for legal authorities.
IT would be cool to see your NSA agent character struggling with the idea of just not questioning anything about his employers. I mean, I get that taht's a big part of NSA-ing and secret agent-ing but usually clever curious guys like that tend to be well curious so it would be cool to see someone transitioning into "no ok I actually cant ask for more details bad idea"
ReplyDeleteIt was a bit of an adjustment for *me*. I recall early in my time there, in my first office, I was seated near two agents who were working on something. I asked, I thought innocently, "What you are two working on?" I was immediately told by one of them, in a somewhat scolding tone, that their project was a special access I did not have and I was to never ask them anything about it. Now, I'm certain it wasn't illegal, like the news is implying, but the NSA takes specialized classifications seriously.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Valquist does face a learning curve in his early days at the NSA, described in the novel Amor Vincit Omnia. He inappropriately helps out another team, leading to being called on the carpet by the Director of NSA himself. (And that incident is largely autobiographical.)
Your reaction to the headlines is what we might expect from a Latin teacher: a pedantic grammatical decomposition. Unfortunately, it fails to hit the mark. The headline is fine. It's your inference that is wrong. The headline does not say:
ReplyDelete"So this document certainly proves that the NSA is [...] in fact, engaging in wholesale, widespread surveillance of Americans."
All it says is:
"NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds."
A point which you apparently agree with:
"The report carefully and comprehensively describes exactly how technical and human errors resulted in the inadvertent collection of electronic communication associated with US Citizens."
If there were errors, then rules were broken, as found in the audit. Nothing to exciting here.