Snowden Undermines Presidential Panel’s Defense of NSA Spying

Dueling narratives are clouding a debate over a controversial foreign-intelligence program as the Senate readies reform efforts.

National Journal
Dustin Volz
July 8, 2014, 1 a.m.

Just when the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency looked as though it had fi­nally scored a vic­tory for its ma­ligned sur­veil­lance pro­grams, Ed­ward Snowden again crashed the party.

The fu­git­ive’s new­est leak, re­por­ted by The Wash­ing­ton Post over the week­end, claims that the vast ma­jor­ity of ac­counts scooped up in a for­eign-in­tel­li­gence pro­gram are not those of ac­tu­al over­seas tar­gets but or­din­ary In­ter­net users whose com­mu­nic­a­tions with those tar­gets are in­cid­ent­ally col­lec­ted.

The con­tents of the sur­veil­lance files — al­most half of which con­tained in­form­a­tion from U.S. cit­izens or res­id­ents — “tell stor­ies of love and heart­break, il­li­cit sexu­al li­ais­ons, men­tal-health crises, polit­ic­al and re­li­gious con­ver­sions, fin­an­cial anxi­et­ies and dis­ap­poin­ted hopes,” The Post re­ports.

While re­veal­ing on its face, Snowden’s latest rev­el­a­tion also ar­rived just days after the Pri­vacy and Civil Liber­ties Over­sight Board, an in­de­pend­ent watch­dog agency, deemed spy­ing un­der Sec­tion 702 of the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Act leg­al and ef­fect­ive.

Sec­tion 702, amended in 2008 by Con­gress, al­lows in­tel­li­gence agen­cies to spy on the com­mu­nic­a­tions of for­eign­ers be­lieved to be liv­ing out­side the United States. It provides the leg­al au­thor­ity for an NSA pro­gram known as “PRISM,” in which the agency de­mands that Face­book, Google, and oth­er In­ter­net com­pan­ies hand over users’ com­mu­nic­a­tions. Sec­tion 702 also al­lows in­tel­li­gence agen­cies to tap in­to the In­ter­net back­bone to col­lect massive amounts of in­ter­na­tion­al com­mu­nic­a­tions, a pro­gram un­of­fi­cially known as “Up­stream.”

Wheth­er in­ten­tion­al or not, the timely Post art­icle — the cul­min­a­tion of a four-month in­vest­ig­a­tion of 160,000 email and in­stant-mes­sage con­ver­sa­tions — serves in part as a re­buke to the pri­vacy board’s con­clu­sions, civil-liber­ties groups say, and calls in­to ques­tion the com­plete­ness of its re­view, which stands in stark con­trast to the board’s crit­ic­al re­view earli­er this year of the spy­ing on do­mest­ic phone re­cords un­der Sec­tion 215 of the USA Pat­ri­ot Act.

“There def­in­itely seem to be dis­crep­an­cies” between the re­ports, said Liza Goitein, co­dir­ect­or of the Liberty and Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Pro­gram at the Bren­nan Cen­ter for Justice. “It ap­pears that, in the Snowden doc­u­ments, that [Amer­ic­an] in­form­a­tion is col­lec­ted de­lib­er­ately in far broad­er cir­cum­stances than what the Pri­vacy and Civil Liber­ties Over­sight Board dis­cussed.”

Goitein said the pri­vacy board did not have ac­cess to large samples of in­ter­cep­ted com­mu­nic­a­tions and in­stead re­lied heav­ily on the testi­mony of NSA of­fi­cials when craft­ing its 200-page re­port. “Testi­mony is well and good, but show me the money,” she ad­ded.

That di­ver­gence of source ma­ter­i­al has res­ul­ted in sev­er­al in­con­sist­en­cies, ac­cord­ing to pri­vacy ad­voc­ates, such as the board’s in­sist­ence that NSA tar­gets are “in­di­vidu­al­ized” and cor­res­pond to something akin to an email ad­dress. The Post story, however, re­ports that the NSA has tar­geted In­ter­net Pro­tocol ad­dresses of serv­ers, which could con­ceiv­ably cor­res­pond to hun­dreds or even thou­sands of In­ter­net users.

The new Snowden leak “cer­tainly shows that the PCLOB may not have re­ceived the full story from the in­tel­li­gence com­munity,” said Mark Jay­cox, a le­gis­lat­ive ana­lyst with the Elec­tron­ic Fron­ti­er Found­a­tion. “The Wash­ing­ton Post art­icle in­tro­duces en­tirely new facts that should’ve been ad­dressed by the PCLOB and found in the PCLOB re­port.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5064) }}

The board’s chair­man, Dav­id Med­ine, and Pa­tri­cia Wald, a former D.C. Cir­cuit judge ap­poin­ted by Jimmy Carter, pressed for stronger safe­guards that would re­quire in­tel­li­gence agen­cies to ob­tain a war­rant from the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court be­fore search­ing Amer­ic­an data col­lec­tion via 702 pro­grams.

In a state­ment ac­com­pa­ny­ing the board’s un­an­im­ous re­port, Med­ine and Wald note:

“The Sec­tion 702 pro­gram has col­lec­ted hun­dreds of mil­lions of In­ter­net com­mu­nic­a­tions. Even if only a small per­cent­age of those com­mu­nic­a­tions are to or from an Amer­ic­an, the total num­ber of Amer­ic­ans’ com­mu­nic­a­tions is likely sig­ni­fic­ant. Fur­ther­more, these com­mu­nic­a­tions, which may be main­tained for many years in gov­ern­ment data­bases in search­able form, may con­tain sens­it­ive and con­fid­en­tial mat­ters hav­ing noth­ing to do with the for­eign in­tel­li­gence pur­poses of the Sec­tion 702 pro­gram.”

In an in­ter­view with Na­tion­al Journ­al, Wald con­firmed that the board did not have ac­cess to spe­cif­ic num­bers, such as those re­por­ted in The Wash­ing­ton Post, which con­cluded that nine ac­counts of In­ter­net data are col­lec­ted in­cid­ent­ally on av­er­age for every one tar­get.

“We did not know any­thing about the per­cent­age that would be in­ter­cep­ted as non-tar­geted, or as a sub­set of that, Amer­ic­ans that were not tar­geted,” Wald said. “If true, [the Snowden leak] adds more num­bers to [our ana­lys­is].”

In May, the House passed le­gis­la­tion that would re­quire the gov­ern­ment to ob­tain a war­rant be­fore search­ing the com­mu­nic­a­tions of Amer­ic­ans’ data gathered in­cid­ent­ally un­der 702 au­thor­ity. The pri­vacy board, however, did not en­dorse any le­gis­la­tion that would close so-called back­door do­mest­ic searches. The Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee has said it will take up NSA re­form this sum­mer, and Chair­man Patrick Leahy has in­dic­ated that back­door searches may be a top area of fo­cus.

The Snowden leak ad­di­tion­ally ap­pears to con­firm what pri­vacy groups have long as­sumed: that private, sens­it­ive in­form­a­tion be­long­ing to Amer­ic­ans is be­ing col­lec­ted and kept through 702 sur­veil­lance. The batch of com­mu­nic­a­tions data ex­amined by The Post, which re­portedly in­cluded nearly 900 email ad­dresses that could be “strongly linked” to Amer­ic­ans, in­cludes pic­tures of in­fants in bathtubs and wo­men mod­el­ing linger­ie. The art­icle does not make it ex­pli­citly clear which or how many im­ages re­viewed by NSA ana­lysts be­long to Amer­ic­ans.

Dur­ing the pri­vacy board’s meet­ing last week, mul­tiple mem­bers men­tioned that they hoped its re­port would clear up mis­con­cep­tions about 702 sur­veil­lance.

“I’d like to dis­pel any no­tion that this pro­gram is likely to give the gov­ern­ment a com­plete or even a sig­ni­fic­ant pic­ture of an Amer­ic­an’s private life,” said Rachel Brand, a con­ser­vat­ive mem­ber of the five-mem­ber pan­el, dur­ing her open­ing re­marks.

But pri­vacy groups strongly pushed back on that as­ser­tion.

“The idea that in­tim­ate de­tails are not be­ing col­lec­ted “¦ is not the whole story,” said Neema Guliani, le­gis­lat­ive coun­sel with the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on. “And the Post story really speaks to that.”

Brand would not com­ment about the Post art­icle, ex­cept to say the new Snowden leak made her “con­cerned about the pri­vacy im­plic­a­tions of the NSA’s in­ab­il­ity to safe­guard this data.”

Wald ad­di­tion­ally noted that in­cid­ent­al col­lec­tion could show “a slice of life” but would likely not be able to re­veal a com­plete por­trait of an Amer­ic­an’s per­son­al life.

The Bren­nan Cen­ter’s Goitein dis­agreed with that as­sess­ment.

“There’s no reas­on why sur­veil­lance has to be com­pre­hens­ive to be ab­used,” Goitein said. “All you need is one in­crim­in­at­ing or em­bar­rass­ing piece of in­form­a­tion about a per­son to make their life dif­fi­cult.”

What We're Following See More »
White House Looks Back on bin Laden Mission
6 hours ago
SCOTUS Won’t Hear Appeal of Minimum-Wage Law
8 hours ago

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a sweeping constitutional challenge to Seattle’s minimum wage law, in what could have been a test case for future legal attacks on similar measures across the country. In a one-line order, the justices declined to hear a case by the International Franchise Association and a group of Seattle franchisees, which had said in court papers that the city’s gradual wage increase to $15 discriminates against them in a way that violates the Constitution’s commerce clause."

Sanders Looks to Right the Ship in Indiana
8 hours ago

Hillary Clinton may have the Democratic nomination sewn up, but Bernie Sanders apparently isn't buying it. Buoyed by a poll showing them in a "virtual tie," Sanders is "holding three rallies on the final day before the state primary and hoping to pull off a win after a tough week of election losses and campaign layoffs." 

DC to Release Draft Constitution as Part of Statehood Push
8 hours ago

"The New Columbia Statehood Commission—composed of five District leaders including Mayor Muriel Bowser, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and D.C.'s congressional delegation—voted today to publicly release a draft of a new constitution for an eventual state next Friday, at the Lincoln Cottage." It's the first step in a statehood push this year that will include a constitutional convention in June and a referendum in November.

Will Ferrell Bails on Reagan Movie
9 hours ago

Amid outcry by President Reagan's children, actor Will Ferrell has pulled out of a movie that makes light of Reagan's Alzheimer's disease. A spokesperson for Ferrell said, “The ‘Reagan’ script is one of a number of scripts that had been submitted to Will Ferrell which he had considered. While it is by no means an ‘Alzheimer’s comedy’ as has been suggested, Mr. Ferrell is not pursuing this project."