5 ms·

But.. what about parallel construction? We know that the NSA is feeding tips to, among others, the DEA and ATFE -- they're just pretending to find out about cri

But.. what about parallel construction? We know that the NSA is feeding tips to, among others, the DEA and ATFE -- they're just pretending to find out about criminal activity in other-than-blanket-surveilance ways. The practice is so commonplace that the NSA has a special division for seeding the evidence to other agencies, and there are indications that even state and local law enforcement agencies are in on the fun.

adventured 12y ago
The argument being made by the parent, is that it would be far worse than the abuse that is already occurring, were the FBI to have direct control of the equivalent spying systems and data trove that the NSA already has on US citizens.
- randcraw 12y ago
  Yes, but I disagree. It's a matter of avoidance of oversight. NSA is designed to avoid it and FBI is not, they simply cannot. FBI is tightly constrained by the process of law in ways that Guantanamo and NSA were created and operate in order to escape. What's more, FBI is also a MUCH leakier boat when it comes to intel gathering, storage, analysis, and sharing. Law enforcement personnel and practice could not possibly hide the decade+ worth of mass surveillance practices from US senators, congress, and the office of the President as NSA has. As it happens I know something about the mindset within both orgs. With FBI, eventually the truth will come out. Not so with NSA - unless another Snowden is willing to commit suicide, professionally and personally.
randcraw 12y ago
Exactly. Right now the NSA can escape all legal oversight because it has historically operated physically outside the US and under military governance. Since 9-11 and the Patriot Acts, BSA operations have moved inside the US. And in concert with the sharing of intel across military and civilian, the NSA now operates freely across all spaces. This was never intended by statute, and virtually no oversight is in place to ensure 1) intel is gathered lawfully or 2) info is shared lawfully. Unlike the NSA, the FBI must operate wholly within the US and state civilian court system, so its gathering and disbursing of info is much more closely overseen and regulated. It's also become very clear from their response to Snowden's revelations that NSA is not going to get any closer oversight any time soon. The FBI and its partners cannot hope to maintain a comparable cloak of invulnerability. To Bruce's suggestion, I vote yea.
- angersock 12y ago
  Here's your oversight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover Giving NSA powers (or archives) to the NSA is a really, really, really bad idea. The court system and legal system in the US these days is a joke and a farce--just look at the number of cases that make it to trial. We can't afford to give this sort of power over to any law enforcement agency.

adventured 12y ago

The argument being made by the parent, is that it would be far worse than the abuse that is already occurring, were the FBI to have direct control of the equivalent spying systems and data trove that the NSA already has on US citizens.

randcraw 12y ago
Yes, but I disagree. It's a matter of avoidance of oversight. NSA is designed to avoid it and FBI is not, they simply cannot. FBI is tightly constrained by the process of law in ways that Guantanamo and NSA were created and operate in order to escape. What's more, FBI is also a MUCH leakier boat when it comes to intel gathering, storage, analysis, and sharing. Law enforcement personnel and practice could not possibly hide the decade+ worth of mass surveillance practices from US senators, congress, and the office of the President as NSA has. As it happens I know something about the mindset within both orgs. With FBI, eventually the truth will come out. Not so with NSA - unless another Snowden is willing to commit suicide, professionally and personally.

randcraw 12y ago

Exactly. Right now the NSA can escape all legal oversight because it has historically operated physically outside the US and under military governance. Since 9-11 and the Patriot Acts, BSA operations have moved inside the US. And in concert with the sharing of intel across military and civilian, the NSA now operates freely across all spaces. This was never intended by statute, and virtually no oversight is in place to ensure 1) intel is gathered lawfully or 2) info is shared lawfully. Unlike the NSA, the FBI must operate wholly within the US and state civilian court system, so its gathering and disbursing of info is much more closely overseen and regulated. It's also become very clear from their response to Snowden's revelations that NSA is not going to get any closer oversight any time soon. The FBI and its partners cannot hope to maintain a comparable cloak of invulnerability. To Bruce's suggestion, I vote yea.

angersock 12y ago
Here's your oversight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover Giving NSA powers (or archives) to the NSA is a really, really, really bad idea. The court system and legal system in the US these days is a joke and a farce--just look at the number of cases that make it to trial. We can't afford to give this sort of power over to any law enforcement agency.