Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:40 AM Jun 2014

NSA: Our systems are so complex we can’t stop them from deleting data wanted for lawsuit

The National Security Agency recently used a novel argument for not holding onto information it collects about users online activity: it's too complex.

The agency is facing a slew of lawsuits over its surveillance programs, many launched after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked information on the agency's efforts last year. One suit that pre-dates the Snowden leaks, Jewel v. NSA, challenges the constitutionality of programs that the suit allege collect information about American's telephone and Internet activities.
In a hearing Friday, U.S. District for the Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey S. White reversed an emergency order he had issued earlier the same week barring the government from destroying data that the Electronic Frontier Foundation had asked be preserved for that case. The data is collected under Section 702 of the Amendments Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

But the NSA argued that holding onto the data would be too burdensome. "A requirement to preserve all data acquired under section 702 presents significant operational problems, only one of which is that the NSA may have to shut down all systems and databases that contain Section 702 information," wrote NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett in a court filing submitted to the court.
The complexity of the NSA systems meant preservation efforts might not work, he argued, but would have "an immediate, specific, and harmful impact on the national security of the United States." Part of this complexity, Ledgett said, stems from privacy restrictions placed on the programs by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"Communications acquired pursuant to Section 702 reside within multiple databases contained on multiple systems and the precise manner in which NSA stays consistent with its legal obligations under the [FISA Amendments Act] has resulted from years of detailed interaction" with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Department of Justice, Ledgett wrote. NSA regularly purges data "via a combination of technical and human-based processes," he said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/09/nsa-our-systems-are-so-complex-we-cant-stop-them-from-deleting-data-wanted-for-lawsuit/


Oh good grief is anyone really buying this bullshit?
I mean really?..... well I guess we will always a the usual suspects....... but really?



65 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NSA: Our systems are so complex we can’t stop them from deleting data wanted for lawsuit (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 OP
a lot of it is probably transient PowerToThePeople Jun 2014 #1
well Leme Jun 2014 #2
It's actually very understandable. randome Jun 2014 #3
It can be difficult to allocate programmers to stop these automated scripts from occurring. Live and Learn Jun 2014 #14
Not if the system is complex enough. randome Jun 2014 #19
Any DBA can stop a script from running. Live and Learn Jun 2014 #64
"I find your whatchamacallit Jun 2014 #28
Faith is not a requirement for trying to fill in the blanks left by the WaPo article. randome Jun 2014 #29
It really is, isn't it? Union Scribe Jun 2014 #43
As a former coder/DBA Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author enough Jun 2014 #5
I talked to some tech friends on this that Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #7
You can say 'we can't undelete data that's already gone' Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #9
Couldn't they have systems in place to prevent mirroring? randome Jun 2014 #10
Sure, and they'd be easy to find and turn off. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #11
I've been with various large corporations for a long time. randome Jun 2014 #12
Are you kidding me? Who knows? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #13
Oh please, and it gets better Aerows Jun 2014 #33
I'm sure they are legally prohibited from making backups... randome Jun 2014 #34
Yeah Aerows Jun 2014 #35
You don't think they are required to destroy the data? randome Jun 2014 #36
Like I said Aerows Jun 2014 #38
Wal-Mart is required to pay employees who work through lunches and breaks, too. LanternWaste Jun 2014 #62
Oh, yes - I'm sure... brentspeak Jun 2014 #47
At the time of the Falklands war in 1982 dickthegrouch Jun 2014 #51
And what about the tapes. What organization doesn't have backups going back to the mayflower. LiberalArkie Jun 2014 #24
It's ridiculous on its face Aerows Jun 2014 #39
Let's see, is this Kafkaesque, or Orwellian? Kafka I think. (nt) enough Jun 2014 #6
But not so complicated that we can't stop it from deleting data used to get the TERRRORRRISTSS!!! tk2kewl Jun 2014 #8
This is all based on the assumption smallcat88 Jun 2014 #15
Correct MosheFeingold Jun 2014 #16
Section 702 evidently REQUIRES that data on US citizens be destroyed: ucrdem Jun 2014 #17
Andrea Peterson is the Tech Reporter for ThinkProgress. Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #20
"Andrea Peterson covers technology policy for The Washington Post" ucrdem Jun 2014 #21
She was a ThinkProgress writer too Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #22
So post a TP article and we'll discuss it. ucrdem Jun 2014 #25
You called her a neo con.... Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #26
Read what I wrote, thanks. nt ucrdem Jun 2014 #27
From a technical perspective Aerows Jun 2014 #55
From a legal perspective, it hasn't, and who brought up the reporter? Not me. nt ucrdem Jun 2014 #58
You smeared the messenger Aerows Jun 2014 #59
Oh baloney. I said nothing about Peterson and WaPo is no paragon of objectivity ucrdem Jun 2014 #60
Trust the fucking scum of the earth? JEB Jun 2014 #18
More smoke and mirrors blackspade Jun 2014 #23
They can't prove it is true ...that's a national security secret. See how that works? L0oniX Jun 2014 #42
Oh, I understand alright.... blackspade Jun 2014 #61
This has to be the stupidest lie I've heard yet Aerows Jun 2014 #30
George W Bush must be their chief systems administrator. L0oniX Jun 2014 #41
Forgive them SwankyXomb Jun 2014 #31
Sounds like they're preparing for the list of names Greenwald is planning to publish Oilwellian Jun 2014 #32
"well I guess we will always a the usual suspects" Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #37
NSA lovers Snowden haters are happy. Can you say NO ACCOUNTABILITY? L0oniX Jun 2014 #40
Sounds a lot like ... LiberalLovinLug Jun 2014 #44
Complete and utter bullshit. With their thirst for all information that is none of their fucking GoneFishin Jun 2014 #45
It says right in the article that there are also Aerows Jun 2014 #54
I agree. Also, although I have not seen any concrete proof of blackmail yet, I strongly GoneFishin Jun 2014 #63
Help, we can't stop ourselves from flushing the drugs down the toilet! Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #46
The excuse of "it's too complex" is the new "the nation wouldn't survive..." Javaman Jun 2014 #48
The dog ate the homework is about as plausible. hobbit709 Jun 2014 #49
Why does Gonzales come to mind? Oh, yes, this is another 5-year-old child's type valerief Jun 2014 #50
The PAKLED AWARD Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #52
A few are buying it. But more and more are not. Which is why we are seeing the desperate attempts to sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #53
By this logic NSA can have it both ways any time they want it. Ford_Prefect Jun 2014 #56
Awesome Savannahmann Jun 2014 #57
Oh god, what b.s.! n/t bobGandolf Jun 2014 #65
 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
1. a lot of it is probably transient
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:45 AM
Jun 2014

do some real time analysis on the full dataset and pull any flagged data out of it. dump the rest. they still would analyze everything... Just a thought. But, I did think they kept all the records by what I have read to date.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
2. well
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:45 AM
Jun 2014

link this to that and make it too hard to comply without breaching national security or have an auto delete...does not sound that difficult.
-
too complicated to do also sounds "reasonable". Any excuse will do.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
3. It's actually very understandable.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:46 AM
Jun 2014

The NSA has so much data, they likely have hundreds of automated systems in place that purge data periodically. It's not like someone has to actually push a button for every purge that occurs.

Big organizations dealing with big data have a lot of moving pieces. It can be difficult to allocate programmers to stop these automated scripts from occurring. Some purges that may stop can even affect other systems that expect the data to already be gone.

But what they might be able to do is copy the data for temporary review.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
19. Not if the system is complex enough.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:12 AM
Jun 2014

Interceding could affect other systems. And, as pointed out below, the NSA is required to destroy this data periodically. I'm surprised the judge removed the previous prohibition so I'm betting we aren't getting the full story from the Washington Post.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
64. Any DBA can stop a script from running.
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:43 AM
Jun 2014

It is not difficult at all. You are mistaken on this point.

Why would it affect other systems to store the data? That makes no sense.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
29. Faith is not a requirement for trying to fill in the blanks left by the WaPo article.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:33 AM
Jun 2014

Why did the judge lift the previous prohibition? Did he find the NSA's explanation plausible? And if so, why?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
43. It really is, isn't it?
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:06 PM
Jun 2014

Thread after thread carrying their water no matter what the latest revelations are. On my phone I can't see posters' names on the thread-view but I knew who that was before clicking the post.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
4. As a former coder/DBA
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:46 AM
Jun 2014

With a master's degree in systems analysis and over a decade in the field, no, I'm not buying it.

It might take more man-hours, but they've got the budget. 'Too burdensome' my ass.

Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #4)

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
7. I talked to some tech friends on this that
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:56 AM
Jun 2014

have a similar backgrounds they said

Yeah right ....this story stinks,

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
9. You can say 'we can't undelete data that's already gone'
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:00 AM
Jun 2014

but you can't really say 'we can't mirror data we're collecting currently' to some place where it's not automatically being deleted.

So you mirror your data until such time as you've altered the code not to auto-delete it.

Again, it might be expensive, it might take a lot of storage, a lot of coding hours, but they've got the cash.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
10. Couldn't they have systems in place to prevent mirroring?
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:05 AM
Jun 2014

Or even to prevent access without going through the secure route?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
11. Sure, and they'd be easy to find and turn off.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:15 AM
Jun 2014

I'm sorry, but things like that aren't 'lost' in masses of code'. Permissions and limits on how data is copied are in very specific places, and if you're an admin on a system, you know exactly where to find them, because you're the guy that has to make changes to them or who set them up. And because the people who actually write the base code on databases thoroughly document how to set up permissions and tasks.

Seriously, the only argument you're making is that the people working for the NSA are too incompetent to know how to control their own code. Anybody who would believe what's being said here either is not in IT or is totally incompetent if they are in IT.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
12. I've been with various large corporations for a long time.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:18 AM
Jun 2014

Some are better run than others. Some can barely find the data they base their business on. I would assume NSA is better organized but who knows?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
13. Are you kidding me? Who knows?
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:21 AM
Jun 2014

Sure, there are plenty of management hacks all over the business world, but the NSA recruits many of the best mathematicians, the best hackers, the best systems people on the planet. I'm sorry, but no matter how far over backwards you bend, this one simply isn't believable. Even a mediocre DBA and a couple of generic coders could do what they say is 'too burdensome', given the time. They don't need top flight people (which they have) in order to do it. Just not total incompetents.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
33. Oh please, and it gets better
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:40 AM
Jun 2014

They don't make backups? Ha Ha. Yeah, just get a virus in there and let the whole thing get corrupted, then they just throw up their hands and say "Oh well, we'll just have to rebuild the whole thing from scratch!"

Only a person that knows NOTHING whatsoever about how IT shops are run would believe such bullshit. And purging the database. Don't even get me started on that one. Unless you take time-consuming steps, deleting shit out of a database doesn't get rid of the data - you can still access it.

This is literally the stupidest lie we've heard yet from the NSA. You would have to be an idiot to believe it.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
34. I'm sure they are legally prohibited from making backups...
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:42 AM
Jun 2014

...of data they are legally required to destroy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
35. Yeah
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:46 AM
Jun 2014

Tell me another one. As Erich said, these aren't incompetents. I don't know of one single person that has ever set foot in a server room that would believe this bullshit.

If you have set foot in a server room, and actually believe this, you need to find a new line of work.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
36. You don't think they are required to destroy the data?
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:49 AM
Jun 2014

You don't think they have some system in place more robust than that found in the average IT shop to ensure the data is not recoverable?

When the 5 year limit is up, they probably remove the hard drive and melt it. Is that final enough for you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
38. Like I said
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:51 AM
Jun 2014

If you ACTUALLY believe this new set of lies and work in IT, find a new line of work pronto.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
62. Wal-Mart is required to pay employees who work through lunches and breaks, too.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:16 PM
Jun 2014

Wal-Mart is required to pay employees who work through lunches and breaks, too (regardless of possessing a system "robust" enough to track such hours). I imagine many simpletons believe they in fact, do.

dickthegrouch

(3,151 posts)
51. At the time of the Falklands war in 1982
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:42 PM
Jun 2014

I remember a Royal Navy Admiral saying something to the effect of "In times gone by, we'd simply have fired a warning shot across their bows, these days the shot is too damned 'intelligent' and it hits them anyway".

All these kinds of systems can be subverted in an instant by someone who knows what they are doing. I agree that the NSA excuse is pure BS. The only bit that carries any merit whatsoever is that they'd end up with a few petabytes of data they didn't really want. Expensive to power, expensive to provision, expensive to hold idle for a couple of years, but re-usable after that time passes unless Moore's law applies to data storage as well as CPU processing speeds.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
39. It's ridiculous on its face
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:55 AM
Jun 2014

No organization doesn't have hard backups, synchronized contingency storage and about 50 other ways to recover data from a database if it is needed, unless it is run by the least competent people in the world.

If there is a severe hardware failure, what do they do, just throw up their hands and say "Oh well, I guess we'll have to start from scratch!"

Who do they think they are fooling with this bullshit explanation?

MosheFeingold

(3,051 posts)
16. Correct
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:53 AM
Jun 2014

What people don't get is Karl Rove is licking his chops to get this information and to turn the machine of government onto the people.

This evil must be dismantled.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
17. Section 702 evidently REQUIRES that data on US citizens be destroyed:
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:58 AM
Jun 2014
Any inadvertently acquired communication of or concerning a U.S. person must be
promptly destroyed if it is neither relevant to the authorized purpose nor evidence of a
crime.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2013/06/nsa-sect702.pdf


This being WaPo which is in the tank for the neocons don't expect clarity from the article, but from what I can tell the EFF is asking for info that Section 702, passed in 2008, would have required the NSA to destroy.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
21. "Andrea Peterson covers technology policy for The Washington Post"
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:14 AM
Jun 2014

From your link above, which is to Wapo.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
55. From a technical perspective
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:59 PM
Jun 2014

this latest lie from the NSA has been debunked. Since technically the story won't hold up, better smear the messenger!

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
59. You smeared the messenger
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:37 PM
Jun 2014

It was right there in your first post!

"This being WaPo which is in the tank for the neocons"

In the tank for the neocons isn't a smear to attempt to discredit the article!?

It has been proven illegal because what the NSA stated that they are doing is so ridiculous that no one in IT that is in their right mind would believe they can't stop data from being retained (or deleted - they contradict themselves so much it's hard to keep up with what lie they are telling from day to day).

It's absolutely absurd that they are claiming that they auto-delete and can't stop it, especially when they say right there in the post that there are "human processes". "Stop doing that" would be the first way to prevent it! So no, they aren't following the law. Which makes it ILLEGAL from a legal perspective.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
60. Oh baloney. I said nothing about Peterson and WaPo is no paragon of objectivity
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:46 PM
Jun 2014

and never has been. As for your personal opinion everybody has one etc. Basically worthless without docs and you haven't yet posted a single link. Par for the course so carry on, this is getting boring.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
23. More smoke and mirrors
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jun 2014


Everything that comes from an NSA spokesperson should be treated as bullshit until proven true.
 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
30. This has to be the stupidest lie I've heard yet
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:36 AM
Jun 2014

from the NSA, and we've heard a lot of stupid lies from them.

You can purge data from a database, but unless you take very specific and time consuming steps, it's STILL THERE. How fucking stupid does the government think we are? And they don't make back ups? Well, gee, lets just introduce a virus in there and the entire system goes down.

"Human based processes". So does someone actually look at the data or not? LOL.

NOBODY that has ever been in IT for ten minutes could possibly believe such bullshit. Anyone that has ever been a Systems Administrator or a Network Admin/Engineer or in IT Security is laughing their asses off at this chunk of stupidity. Decent DBA's are laughing their asses off.

I've heard dumb lies before, but this takes the cake.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
32. Sounds like they're preparing for the list of names Greenwald is planning to publish
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:37 AM
Jun 2014

I have no doubt Obama is on that list and voila! it's too complicated to find his data. LOL...stupid fuckers.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
40. NSA lovers Snowden haters are happy. Can you say NO ACCOUNTABILITY?
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:00 PM
Jun 2014

Destroying evidence ...good for them and those that love the NSA and the government spying on its own.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
45. Complete and utter bullshit. With their thirst for all information that is none of their fucking
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:31 PM
Jun 2014

business, there is no way they are purging data bases without human oversight.

They are the hoarders from that A&E TV show, but with other people's data.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
54. It says right in the article that there are also
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:57 PM
Jun 2014

"Human Processes". Beyond that, nobody with any IT experience at all would believe such bullshit.

This is just the next in a series of lies released by the NSA so they can continue to operate and expand the surveillance state. Got to keep the money rolling in, and make sure no one gets in the way of profit.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
63. I agree. Also, although I have not seen any concrete proof of blackmail yet, I strongly
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:39 PM
Jun 2014

suspect that it is only a matter of time before revelations of that come out.

Uncle Joe

(58,107 posts)
46. Help, we can't stop ourselves from flushing the drugs down the toilet!
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:33 PM
Jun 2014

Thanks for the thread, Ichingcarpenter.

Javaman

(62,435 posts)
48. The excuse of "it's too complex" is the new "the nation wouldn't survive..."
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:39 PM
Jun 2014

it's just another catch all phrase to be bandied about until it becomes so ingrained into the modern nomenclature that it becomes the go to smoke screen for anything and everything the government or it's agencies don't want to do.

Newspeak (from the novel 1984) was a concept and program to eliminate words and phrased and make language more efficient.

The "Newspeak" employed in todays reality, instead of eliminating words, they use a refined version of double talk to confuse, obscure and detract.

valerief

(53,235 posts)
50. Why does Gonzales come to mind? Oh, yes, this is another 5-year-old child's type
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:41 PM
Jun 2014

of ploy.

I dunno.
I can't.
I dunno how.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
53. A few are buying it. But more and more are not. Which is why we are seeing the desperate attempts to
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:51 PM
Jun 2014

minimize the crimes being exposed by Whistle Blower after Whistle Blower.

There are always enablers for one reason or another.

Ford_Prefect

(7,817 posts)
56. By this logic NSA can have it both ways any time they want it.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:07 PM
Jun 2014

All the data all the time with no legal logic for holding it, and no record of how they used the data or searched it. It is the opposite of a chain of custody for evidence.

Ultimately NSA operates in an extra-legal environment by their own admission. FISA is not equipped to acknowledge this nor is it able to accurately monitor the chain of custody.

Presently Congress cannot accurately determine whether NSA is applying its considerable and so far unregulated powers and budget towards protecting Americans from a genuine threat. Likewise Congress cannot determine whether NSA is instead trolling for information to protect itself from critics, and in the process acting as a government in the shadows by promoting its own policies through intimidation and blackmail. Apparently neither can the President.

During the "Cold War"period many excesses were excused under policies that assumed if anyone was capable of betrayal everyone was therefore suspect. The NSA seems to operate under the same dogma.

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
57. Awesome
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:09 PM
Jun 2014

We've created machines that are now running the show irregardless of what the humans tell it to do. I've always waited for the day that Science Fiction became reality. One question, by any chance is the system they have controlling all this data called HAL-9000?

"Hal, I want you to refrain from deleting the data."



"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

http://www.palantir.net/2001/tma1/wav/cantdo.wav

This was an awesome movie man. I'm so glad we actually did it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NSA: Our systems are so c...