Even the NSA has no idea what it is collecting, but it sends it to Israel anyways.

errrr...I don't exactly see how this is speculation, and I don't exactly see how this document has no relevance to the notion Israel is getting raw data from the United States.

Other documents in the article are cited as to why this would, even by the security agencies' notions, be a pretty bad idea.

When your only defense is that there may or may not have been a "better final deal" of dealing with raw data that shouldn't be collected in the first place, nevermind sent to foreign governments,---well, that's a pretty "raw" deal.

 

Unminimalized information is by default in violation of the fourth amendment, because hell, even minimalized information has been found to be in violation of the fourth amendment:

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/September 2012 Bates Opinion and Order.pdf

I seem to remember that you are a big proponent of the rule of law. Well, even the dubious secret courts have admitted the NSA violates the Constitution and FISA by collecting minimalized data. i don't know what they'd say about collecting unminimalized data and sending it to a foreign government, because everything is secret as f**k, but now that's it's not, I think there are some MAJOR legal problems to say the least, nevermind ethical issues.

The issue here isn't at all how much of it was done, or Greenwald himself (shooting the messenger scores no points here) but that this is being done, period. If you are an adherent, as you profess, to the rule of law, you will realize how much of a sacriledge this is.

It's a bit like saying to Bob who has just informed you "hey, you know the neighbour murders people."---"HOW MANY TIMES? and dude, you have a weird haircut."

 

that's actually more worrying because the documents attempts to put some semblance of legal legitimacy to this charade.

Do you think America got more favorable terms for how it would deal with the export of illegal collection of raw data?

Well, guess it's up to the US government to declassify some more documents to tell us. Thanks Edward Snowden for starting the process!

 

Under FISA, raw unminimalized surveillance of Americans has been illegal since 1977...

of course who knows what the secret court has ruled after. Maybe that's the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to US$10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.[17]

In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney's fees.

unminimalized information sent to Israel? or anyone? or it being collected and moved at all? that's a paddlin

How do you know the United States rejected it and got more favorable terms?

You accuse the Guardian of speculating on one line, but you seem to be doing quite a fair bit of speculating on your end.

Thank Edward Snowden that we know of this at all, and may more light be shed on this issue.

as for revealing that the NSA has dubious intelligence sharing methods that seem to circumvent American law, well the only thing that has gone wrong so far has been a shaken belief in rule of law.

 

How do you know the Americans didn't sign it after, in the exact same form? How do you know something like this was signed at all eventually? The reality is, you don't know, and everything you're positing is pure conjucture based on very circumstantial evidence.

the document, as constructed, clearly indicates that this data sent to Israel very likely contains data on Americans (well, of course---as the FISC court ruling showed in 2012, there is no collection of any data that passes without significant scooping of American metadata---and FISC has a problem with how that data is minimalized, let's not even bother thinking what FISC would say about not even bothering to minimalize the information at all, and sending it to a foreign government!)

We have admissions that the NSA is "sending more than it intends to send", a pretty glaring admission that even they don't know what that data contains.

That this framework was never signed raises MORE questions, not less, because it apparently tries to lightly tap the Israelis and remind them that "we have a Constitution", even as the NSA sends them raw data that is clearly being treated illegally by not being minimalized at all.

Yes, I say that, because the standards for electronic surveillance without a court order are very strict, stricter even than minimalization requirements with a court order (which should be the case):

no escaping the last part

oh, unless you want to conjecture that the NSA is using electronic warrentless surveillance on a mass basis, and violating the law by acquiring American metadata haphazardly due to their incompetence...and then deciding to ship that off to Israel without even minimalizing it, and clearly stating they send more than they intend to---I think we've opened up a bigger can of worms here.

 

To me this raises a couple of questions

1) Why would you send raw data and let some other country figure out what to do with it after? Has the NSA lost the handle itself on what it scoops up given the scale (very likely given what has been revealed), and has it consistently decided to abandon privacy standards and constitutional concerns in the face of expediency? You are letting another country apply American constitutional standards instead of doing it yourself! What?

2) To what extent does even the secret FISC court (no shining beacon of hope itself) get ignored? For there to be a routine collection of unminimalized data, this seems to indicate that either the court is not being listened to, or there is a disturbing amount of warrentless surveillance that still prevails.

declassify some documents, shed light on the truth

 

oh yes, Greenwald focuses on what COULD be done.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security

let's give the NSA the benefit of the doubt though, it's not like a secret court convened basically to rubber-stamp the NSA, and take privacy law interpretation away from the Supreme Court and some notion of openness and adversarial forces has declared their actions unconstitutional.

Anyways, that bolded paragraph seems to indicate you need to run through the legal implications again of what IS happening.

The only reason why this agreement exists is because, and I go back to the thread title: even the NSA has no idea what it is collecting but it sends it to Israel anyways. After all, if information on Americans is minimalized as you so clearly think it to be, even if there's no real good reason for you to think it (oh they must follow rule of law, since they do so ALL THE TIME *cough* FISC problems *cough*), this doesn't jibe with the fact that the NSA admits it sends more than it intends, and feels the need to have even PROPOSED memorandums of understanding with foreign nations that say something along the lines of: oh yeah, if you find those secret Obama wiretaps we performed, kindly disregard.

Given the scale of the big data operation and Stellar Wind, it may be forgivable, but sending away raw unminimalized data is most likely illegal, barring a couple of secret FISC rulings we don't know about. This is because that FISC court ruling I keep on citing confirms the worst: tons of American data is scraped in electronic surveillance (especially as revealed documents show even friend of a friend surveillance is chill). This is what makes even minimalization insufficient to allay constitutional concerns as even FISC has the balls to point out. Your escape hatch with the warrentless electronic surveillance has even stricter standards then that: there should never even be a significant chance of ANY American communications data being captured---which as this memorandum clearly indicates is not the case.

There's a couple of roads around this, none of them comforting.

either a) the NSA is sheerly incompetent
b) the NSA is very competent, but the scale of the data is beyond human control (most likely, given my experience with big data)
c) there are tons of warrentless wiretaps being deployed to get data, meaning the President is first of all seemingly overstepping his bounds on what should be a very narrow statute, and the NSA is bordering the line on criminality by using a targeted approach that demands there is no substantial chance of getting American data---in cases where there clearly are, especially when it comes to electronic surveillance.

As for the rest, please try to stick to the central point. I don't know what you are trying to do attacking the messenger (either the Guardian or myself), but for someone who makes a point to grandstand about the rule of law, there would seem to be more pressing problems (you should investigate this more deeply, one would assume).

 

Yes, logic dictates that Israel would send an understanding that they would remove data about American government officials and obey the 4th amendment. That's gotta be driven by Israel. The fact that it was unsigned meant Israel HAD to have proposed something better, because the NSA follows the law in all instances. *cough*

The story is straight: the FISC is a rubber-stamp court. It has been clearly indicated that there is Non-Adversariality during proceedings. HUGE controversy if you're in it for the rule of law. But the fact that even the FISC thought it worth mentioning that the NSA was violating the Constitution, even though it's a secret court with no adversarial evidence represented, and to which average Americans who may have had their rights violated have no recourse to due to classification of such violations of rights (again, HUGE problems from a legal perspective) just indicates how far of a hole America is down. Even deep in the s**t, the banana republic court has decided against something. You know that's grave.

Raw untested data is most likely illegal. The only reason why I can't say 100% that it is is that who knows what FISC has ruled after as a parallel Supreme Court on privacy issues. If you had read the key passages I have been highlighting, I have been trying to hit you over the head with the fact that the NSA in its' raw untested data is scooping up the domestic communications of Americans, no matter its' original targeting. FISC found problems with the targeting and minimalization proceedings because of the amount of wholly domestic communications the NSA was collecting incidentally. I have cited the quote numerous times that the NSA has acknowledged the exchange of information is "more robust than intended", and this, combined with the court's opinion, should plainly inform you why shipping off raw data of any kind is a terrible idea.

but of course, you can hide in your hole, and say it's nothing. Israel felt the need to propose 4th Amendment protections, and to erase data on government officials if it found it. The fact that that information might even be there? huh.

(by the way, yes, flagrantly illegal).

Five Eyes is its' own separate controversy. How chummy GCHQ and the NSA have gotten (to the point where the NSA pays off the GCHQ to contravene the spirit if not the letter of the law) would be a good topic if you wish to deviate to that. That's the whole point of Snowdon's revelations: each one is a whole other point of controversy.

I introduced a separate point about backdoor access for example that you have not addressed at all.

So yes, in this thread, the controversy is that raw data is collected and shipped to Israel with poor oversight, as clearly indicated. We know there is poor oversight because FISC, that secret court, even had the balls to suggest it.

This is because that is the blunt of new revelations.

If you want, we can tread old ground, and discuss why GCHQ and NSA collaboration is also controversial, as well as the rest of the Five Eyes, but that has been covered in previous articles, and discussions (some in this very forum).

And say it with me: all because of Edward Snowden (thanks!)

 

Israel may have proposed it, but logically speaking, they wouldn't have been the first to propose the spirit of the accords: unless you want to tell me that Israel has an intrinsic interest in the Constitution.

Replace "oversight committee complaining about potential excesses" to FISC finding the actions of the NSA unconstitutional---by extension, making these actions very dubious.

The NSA criminally breaks encryptions, and makes it easier for criminals to gather private data. Also, the NSA monitors international credit card information. etc. but I mean, you can just minimalize everything. pun intended.

Unfortunately, Kojirou, you live in a nation that leans more to the truth then to secrecy, to its' credit.