Declassified Report From 2009 Questions Effectiveness of NSA Spying 56
schwit1 writes: With debate gearing up over the coming expiration of the Patriot Act surveillance law, the Obama administration on Saturday unveiled a 6-year-old report examining the once-secret program code-named Stellarwind, which collected information on Americans' calls and emails. The report was from the inspectors general of various intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
They found that while many senior intelligence officials believe the program filled a gap by increasing access to international communications, others including FBI agents, CIA analysts and managers "had difficulty evaluating the precise contribution of the [the surveillance system] to counterterrorism efforts because it was most often viewed as one source among many available analytic and intelligence-gathering tools in these efforts."
"The report said that the secrecy surrounding the program made it less useful. Very few working-level C.I.A. analysts were told about it. ... Another part of the newly disclosed report provides an explanation for a change in F.B.I. rules during the Bush administration. Previously, F.B.I. agents had only two types of cases: "preliminary" and "full" investigations. But the Bush administration created a third, lower-level type called an "assessment." This development, it turns out, was a result of Stellarwind.
They found that while many senior intelligence officials believe the program filled a gap by increasing access to international communications, others including FBI agents, CIA analysts and managers "had difficulty evaluating the precise contribution of the [the surveillance system] to counterterrorism efforts because it was most often viewed as one source among many available analytic and intelligence-gathering tools in these efforts."
"The report said that the secrecy surrounding the program made it less useful. Very few working-level C.I.A. analysts were told about it. ... Another part of the newly disclosed report provides an explanation for a change in F.B.I. rules during the Bush administration. Previously, F.B.I. agents had only two types of cases: "preliminary" and "full" investigations. But the Bush administration created a third, lower-level type called an "assessment." This development, it turns out, was a result of Stellarwind.
Hello Captain Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
How much did that report cost? I could have given it to them in 2 words, for free:
Q: "Is unconstitutional warrantless spying effective?"
A: "Fuck no."
Re: (Score:1)
If this definition of transparency is what it is all about, then why are we bothering in buying crap at the mall when we should all be getting barcodes, wander around suffering brain damage and obviously doing it naked. If stupidity is what they want, then they should get it full force in numbers, in fact blithering idiot brain damaged dysfunctional stupidity fighting over low hanging fruit while swinging from tree branches is what they should get, that would be the exact example provided by the government
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not what the report said, though.
The report said that the resources needed to be used more effectively.
I think that everyone agrees that this level of surveillance is bad for our society, but the report said something different from your summary.
Re:Hello Captain Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps you should read it:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/25/us/25stellarwind-ig-report.html
It says Stellawind was illegal. That they knew it was illegal. That the FBI hid the details using a team '10' to scrub any mention of it, that the judges were misled, that Gonzales misled Congress, that it didn't work, that they misused NSLs, field officers said the info was garbage, their tests showed the results of random fishing were totally worthless, Yoo suggests Ashcroft hide it from [redacted] (likely Congress or the courts),
NYT even highlighted the meat of the report. Yet you spin it, perhaps hoping nobody will actually follow the link?
You datamine noise, the 'signal' you get is the portion of noise that maps your chosen filter. It's garbage and in the process you implement a mass surveillance system that threatens the core democracy.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow.
my take.
killer blow is around page 443.
Some "Yoo" memorandum declares it legal.
There is then a chain of new people who come in thinking its not legal.
Then on page 443, Philbin goes into full legal explanation of why it was illegal. (mostly blacked out in the public release afaics)
Ashcroft was a moderate. That's the scary part. (Score:1)
Ashcroft was ready to resign over it. He was hospitalized and incapable of
Re: (Score:3)
So why the release? Are they finding it really hard to recruit people hence, "Very few working-level C.I.A. analysts were told about it." As in come join the CIA and NSA we are not all psychopaths douche bags who get sexually aroused by prying into everyone's privacy, the power, the power.
Yep, they are not all evil and pathetic but until they start prosecuting the corrupt, they have no hope of being respected and that especially includes Darth Cheney, the number one conspirator behind all that mess.
Re: (Score:2)
As a practical matter the program was not unlawful if nobody with responsibility took action against it; the legislative branch did not refuse to fund it, the executive branch did not prosecute anybody responsible for it, and the judicial branch did not apply any 4th amendment remedies. There is plenty of blame to cover all of the Republicans and the Democrats including those who spoke against it but did not do enough to stop it. Talk is cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the report said, though.
The report said that the resources needed to be used more effectively.
That is about as damning as an internal government report ever gets.
Re: (Score:2)
That's almost funny. The program wasn't as successful as expected because they didn't share the data widely enough.
Almost funny. Like, they couldn't do useful analysis because they didn't share it with all the CIA analysts they should have?
Unconstitutional much?
Re:Hello Captain Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
The Russian security services told the FBI that the Boston Bombing Brothers were up to no good. The FBI did a perfunctorily check, and then let them go on with their terrorist work.
The Secret Squirrels should not be monitoring all Americans. They should be tracking terrorists!
Re: (Score:3)
Great idea! Wonder why noone ever thought of that before.
So, any ideas about how to go about "tracking terrorists"? I'm assuming you're going to start by identifying some of them? And then you're going to do what, exactly?
No, there's not a whole lot of really good reason for warrantless (or even warranted) wiretapping of everyone. Nonetheless, security takes a bit more than "well, we should track terrorists
Re:Hello Captain Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
So, any ideas about how to go about "tracking terrorists"?
One need not have a good idea to be able to identify a bad one. In absence of said good idea, the correct action to take is none at all, not carry on with the bad idea because it's all we have. That's how idiots lose limbs cutting down trees and such; it's also how a free and great nation loses that freedom and greatness.
Re: (Score:1)
What is obvious, Mr. Captain, is that the entire PATRIOT ACT and the entire spying program has done NOTHING.
There have been no legit "terrorist" arrests, trials, convictions and detention in federal prison because of it.
Thus there have been no legit "terrorist plots" on American soil disrupted because of it.
You have been taxed at least $250 BILLION dollars for these programs under unconstitutional "laws" over the past 15 years.
The rhetoric for the "wars" and bullshit military invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan,
So: what is their agenda here ? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Tell us that it is not effective; thus we need not worry about loss of privacy; thus we might we well let them continue ?
2) It is not effective because they have not got enough money for XXX; so: please Mr congress critter - vote them some more money
3) It is not effective; you need not worry about encrypting your communications; hopefully enough idiots will believe that!
Pick one of the above or come out with more suggestions.
How about none of the above? (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary seems to indicate that the value of "Stellarwind" wasn't clear because it was one of many sources and few had access to it, not that all NSA spying was seen as ineffective.
The NSA does so much spying that it seems like it would be hard to ever calculate the marginal value of each additional unit of spying. Probably more so because of the fragmentary and unreliable nature of clandestine information and the need to develop multiple sources to achieve any kind of confidence about a particular conclusion or piece of information.
The latter bit is probably what leads to never-ending development of new data sources and methods, especially as each new spying method becomes less and less specific and requires more and more analysis to tease out information. Call metadata doesn't tell you what was discussed or necessarily who was called. You need parallel data from some other source to tell you who is associated with those numbers, where they were, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If not 'political correctness' (Score:1)
... why then that moslem soldier Nidal Malik Hasan was allowed to possess deadly firearm, despite his extreme Jihadist views, which had already been known to the 'intelligence agencies', including NSA and DIA?
If not for the 'political correctness' the 13 American soldiers didn't have to die
Furthermore, Nidal Malik Hasan is not the only moslem terrorism that happened under the watch of the current administration --- The Boston Marathon Bombing, in which 2 moslems planted bombs resulted in innocent bystanders
Re:Thank you Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
And if they keep going with what they are doing, they are playing terrorists hands, because what is the core goal of terrorists?
Spread terror, spread fear. And now we have no means to protect our communication and data while we know the NSA is spying our all every move, we are more afraid then ever.
Underpants gnomes? (Score:2)
1) Collect extensive intelligence from phone calls and internet activity of all Americans
2) Don't tell other agencies about it
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Re: (Score:2)
Allow it to leak to random, unidentified, parties with dubious intentions.
See the recent Frontline "American Terrorist" (Score:5, Insightful)
The conclusion seems to be that while they are able to collect a vast amount of information, they are unable to process and analyze all of the information gathered and connect it to individuals that warrant investigation. And Headley was extremely messy in many situations (e.g. directly contacting wanted terrorist leaders) where others certainly are not--so messy that my confidence in the NSA's abilities has diminished (this is assuming bulk data collection is a good thing to begin with, and I don't think it is). The data collected mainly became useful *after* an incident rather than being used to thwart an attack.
Perhaps things have changed by now as this is an investigation of something that happened several years ago, but I highly recommend the documentary.
Information overload (Score:5, Insightful)
There is simply no way human beings can sort through that much data. That means relying on gadgets and software to do the sorting for the humans. Anyone who manages big data can tell you how corrupt most data sets really are. Names spelled different ways, bits of information incorrectly transcribed, copy errors, format errors, import errors are all low probability events but, when you're dealing with billions of records, there are a lot of them. Just in general, gadget security doesn't work.
In nearly every terrorist event that's happened in the U.S., the FBI had tips from alert citizens. That was true for 9/11 and almost all of them in between. The FBI even interviewed the Boston Marathon bombers. HUMINT works.
Funny that the FBI screw ups don't get more media attention. In nearly every case they didn't effectively use the information they had, so how is more information going to make things better?
Re:Information overload (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who manages big data can tell you how corrupt most data sets really are. Names spelled different ways, bits of information incorrectly transcribed, copy errors, format errors, import errors are all low probability events but, when you're dealing with billions of records, there are a lot of them.
As someone who has spent the better part of two weeks fruitlessly trying to get my Experian data to remotely resemble my Equifax data (and I have exactly 18 months of credit history), I can attest to that. Heck, even in a completely contained ERP system that controls a manufacturing warehouse (one of my clients), the issues that people can cause there are surprising.
In nearly every case they didn't effectively use the information they had
The number one problem of large datasets is not knowing what's in there, therefore not knowing really how to query the data to find out. Strator had a report on that maybe a year ago, discussing the 9/11 "intelligence failure" and the beacon-lit paths the hijackers left behind: essentially, since the FBI wasn't actively looking for people who might be planning a major operation, they never saw the clues.
By way of analogy, if I'm sifting through a ledger table looking for (say) a mis-matched transaction, the odd voucher sequence a few rows up might be completely missed. You can't depend on a specific sequence of vouchers in general; that column looks like a lot of noise. But if I'm tracking down an inventory issue, that odd voucher sequence might just be the key.
The point is, it's easy to blame people for missing the obvious after the fact. But that's 20/20 hindsight; the people who missed it may have been working on something much more pressing.
so how is more information going to make things better?
It can't and wont. More unfiltered data = more noise, and more noise can obscure a real signal or give the impression of a false signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it looks flashy and high-tech, both the surveillance itself and the large sums in the budget line.
It's for show, just like the TSA. And just like the TSA, they have to actually violate rights and/or molest people for the appearances to be convincing. Lawful/constitutional intelligence-gathering just isn't sexy enough.
Effectiveness DOES NOT MATTER! (Score:1)
The program is un-constitutional and therefore needs to be dismantled and the people responsible for it tried for treason. The issue of effectiveness is separate and irrelevant.
Too much information = noise (Score:2)
There's always going to be an optimal balance between information and cognition. Our problem now is that we are gathering too much information for any automated or natural cognition equipment to handle in a useful way. If the NSA were made up of smarter people, they would be focusing far more heavily on AI and crowd-cognitive analysis techniques using humans, not big data.
Why do we get to hear about this? (Score:3)
Usually when it comes to the whole security show spiel, there's little, if any, relevant information going public. Especially when it shows that the whole crap is just a big, useless black hole for pork barrel money. How often and how long have we been asking for anything that shows the whole TSA annoyance has anything coming close to resembling having a positive effect on security?
But suddenly we get such a report without even asking for it? C'mon. What crony didn't pay his kickback in time so his project has to be axed?
It is effective (Score:1)
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a money making machine (Score:5, Insightful)
just like the DEA. Nothing is going to stop it now....
*Why* there is too much noise (Score:1)
Commenters above have talked about the signal/noise problem, and they're right, but I don't think anyone has talked about why this problem exists. I have no direct evidence, but I'd bet that after 9/11, there was a high-level conversation in the administration something like this:
"There might be terror cells all over the US, and we might be hit again! Can the NSA watch the electronic communications of all Muslims in the US?"
"Sure, but we can't be sure of knowing who they all are. Besides, it would be consid
Re: (Score:2)
Real time work, setting policy was the new upgrade. New systems, contractors, linguistics, networks.
The domestic and international telco networks as they have existed and exist now are not a problem in terms of scale or access for the NSA and GCHQ.
Collect it all has always worked well given the all digital systems and fundin
Time To Spy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot more takes place than is shown and this was even more the case in the past. This is reporting bias; the level of outrageous police conduct has changed much less then the increase in video evidence showing it.
I sure hope (Score:1)
SPOILER: They will not.