Boundless Informant: The NSA's Secret Tool to Track Global Surveillance Data

[Hissyspit]

Source: The Guardian

Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloging data – including figures on US collection

Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 8 June 2013 15.10 EDT

The National Security Agency has developed a powerful tool for recording and analysing where its intelligence comes from, raising questions about its repeated assurances to Congress that it cannot keep track of all the surveillance it performs on American communications.

The Guardian has acquired top-secret documents about the NSA datamining tool, called Boundless Informant, that details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks.

The focus of the internal NSA tool is on counting and categorizing the records of communications, known as metadata, rather than the content of an email or instant message.

The Boundless Informant documents show the agency collecting almost 3 billion pieces of intelligence from US computer networks over a 30-day period ending in March 2013. One document says it is designed to give NSA officials answers to questions like, "What type of coverage do we have on country X" in "near real-time by asking the SIGINT [signals intelligence] infrastructure."

- snip -

A snapshot of the Boundless Informant data, contained in a top secret NSA "global heat map" seen by the Guardian, shows that in March 2013 the agency collected 97bn pieces of intelligence from computer networks worldwide.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

---

[dipsydoodle]

2. Fat lot of good that did them in Benghazi.

.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Jordan at number 3?

Strange - can we read anything into that? Has Jordan asked for a lot of monitoring of its own population? Does the NSA think it's about to blow up, so keeps a careful eye?

[JDPriestly]

14. That was also my first question.

[limpyhobbler]

4. Thank goodness for a reporter willing to stand up the the bully government and release all this

secret classified information.

-dragnet collection of phone records
- PRISM collection of internet stuff
- this Boundless Informant.

Fuck all these lame ass government secrets.

The security-war-GWOT-surveillance-police-prison industrial complex has gotten too big for it britches. Time to open the curtains and let some sunlight in.

[pmorlan1]

5. Oversight?

Lies and the lying liars who tell them.

So Mr. President, you say Congress is a check on all of this yet they are consistently lied to by the NSA. How in the world can they be a check on something that they no very little about? This is the same MO that the CIA used on torture. They lied and pretended there was oversight.

[limpyhobbler]

6. Actually the President should have enough integrity not to spy on us.

Some Members of Congress were screaming about the way the government was using the law to spy on everyone. But they were forbidden from talking about the details publicly because they would be breaking the law if they did that.

There is plenty of blame to go around but the main responsibility belongs to the one who did it.

[pmorlan1]

7. Yes indeed

Oh I know. I fully agree.

[pmorlan1]

8. WTF

I was just getting ready to leave this thread when I noticed an ad in the right hand corner that said:

Tell the President you have his back...sign petition, yada, yada.

Are they freaking kidding me? No freakin way would I sign this petition. Anyone with any self respect would tell them where to stick their petition.

[DallasNE]

9. Not Another Worthless, Stale Report On An Old NSA Spying Program

Jim DeMint is smiling right now as his plan is working to perfection. Bluntly, it is time to stop being gullible. Want to read more about this then read this 2006 article. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

So now we have graphics to add to it. Big deal. The problem is the enabling legislation and that was just renewed last December by a large majority of both parties. The only explanation for this coming out now is that it is part of the implementation of Jim DeMint's program to concentrate on "scandal" rather than legislation where wedges can be driven between factions in the Republican Party. STOP CARRYING DEMINT'S WATER FOR HIM!

[JoeyT]

11. Man, the conspiracy theorists are thick on this one.

If your car doesn't crank in the morning do you think Jim DeMint stole your spark plugs?

Congress is to blame for making it legal, Obama is to blame for using it. Or are we going to start arguing murderers that use SYG to get away with murder are blameless because the people that make the laws are to blame, not the people that abuse them?

[pmorlan1]

12. Try Reading

Try reading it you might learn something. You might learn that the the national security director flat out lied to Congress.

[NYC_SKP]

13. As a member of the jury addressing an alert on your reply.

I voted to hide your reply and I indicated that I think you should cheer up and be more civil

The "try reading" shit is pretty insulting, don't you think?

Instead, you might post an adult rebuttal including your claim that the director flat out lied.

Just a heads-up to ya!

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Here's the lie to Congress:

At a hearing of the Senate intelligence committee In March this year, Democratic senator Ron Wyden asked James Clapper, the director of national intelligence: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

"No sir," replied Clapper.

Clapper is the very person who now bemoans how awful it is that the world knows the NSA collects all call data for all Americans.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Speaking of Clapper, he just issued a statement today:

"Reckless Disclosures" "In a Rush to Publish!"

PDF


DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20511

June 8, 2013

DNI Statement on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Over the last week we have seen reckless disclosures of intelligence community measures used to keep Americans safe. In a rush to publish, media outlets have not given the full context–including the extent to which these programs are overseen by all three branches of government–to these effective tools.

In particular, the surveillance activities published in The Guardian and The Washington Post are lawful and conducted under authorities widely known and discussed, and fully debated and authorized by Congress. Their purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information, including information necessary to thwart terrorist and cyber attacks against the United States and its allies.

Our ability to discuss these activities is limited by our need to protect intelligence sources and methods. Disclosing information about the specific methods the government uses to collect communications can obviously give our enemies a “playbook” of how to avoid detection. Nonetheless, Section 702 has proven vital to keeping the nation and our allies safe. It continues to be one of our most important tools for the protection of the nation’s security.

However, there are significant misimpressions that have resulted from the recent articles. Not all the inaccuracies can be corrected without further revealing classified information. I have, however, declassified for release the attached details about the recent unauthorized disclosures in hope that it will help dispel some of the myths and add necessary context to what has been published.

James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/872-dni-statement-on-the-collection-of-intelligence-pursuant-to-section-702-of-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. 'Reckless disclosures' of 'fully debated' measures?

It doesn't really add up, does it? Neither does "their purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information" make sense when we're talking about recording all the call data of all Americans. "The extent to which these programs are overseen by all three branches of government" was not known - because Clapper was trying to keep the programs secret. Remember, he was lying to Congress about this recently.

All in all, I wouldn't trust Clapper further than I could throw him. He's exactly the kind of weasel you don't want looking at citizens' data.

[NYC_SKP]

18. Clapper would explain more fully, 'cept it's super top secret....

...can't jeopardize ongoing ops, right?

[DallasNE]

19. The Question Is Poorly Worded

"Any type of data" lacks specificity. If Clapper understood that to mean "content" then his answer is true. Is metadata the same thing as data? Also, the context is missing here. Depending on what was said before this question "collect" could have been understood as "interpret". I'm not saying this is what happened but state of mind is not established nor has been the context. Is the answer slippery, yes. Is it a lie, I'm not sure that has been established.

If Wyden would have been smart he would have pried deeper, saying something like "None? Not, not even metadata, things like that.". Surely Wyden knew about what was established back in 2006 and was apparently looking for answers to see if that/those programs were still operational. His line of questioning covered his a$$ but was highly ineffectual. Perhaps a staffer should have whispered in his ear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Yes, metadata is included in 'any type of data', obviously

"Any type" - see?

If Clapper understood that to mean "content" and nothing else, then he is a moron who should not be in charge of anything. But he is not a moron, just a liar. The numbers and times of calls is clearly 'data ... on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans'. It's actually harder to describe the sound content of a call as 'data on a person'.

"Depending on what was said before this question "collect" could have been understood as "interpret". "

Only if you're a slimy bastard trying to mislead Congress by applying your own definitions, without making that clear.

[DallasNE]

21. I Worked Over 40 Years In Data Processing

What is called metadata today would be things like scheduling setup, security settings and jobs data. If someone would ask me a question concerning "any data" I would take that to mean content even knowing that other information that has no meaning without context exists. Like I say, Wyden's question was poorly worded and his lack of a follow-up is glaring. We would have requests from legal concerning data and retention from time to time and it was not unusual to ask for clarification on the scope of the request. "Any data" would be one such red flag, especially when it covered a span of time because different versions of jobs, programs and files would likely exists because of routine maintenance.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. It's 'any type of data at all'; the question was specifically worded to be wide

You can watch the video here - start at around 6 minutes:

There had already been a denial that the NSA had 'dossiers' on millions of Americans, and Wyden thought that was too dependent on a definition of 'dossier'. So he's asked a wide question - and since he gets 'no (not wittingly)' as an answer to 'any data at all', there's not much he can do to get narrower in a follow-up. It would have been interesting, because it would basically be an accusation of lying then and then - saying "you say no to 'any type of data at all', but I'll give you some specific classes of data, to give you the chance to change your answer" - but you have to wonder if a hostile interrogation of an official should be started in those surroundings.

If you think that the number you call, when it is, and how how the call is, doesn't count as 'data on a person', but that an audio recording of the conversation is 'data', then you have the weirdest interpretation of the word 'data' I've ever heard of from someone in IT.

[Iliyah]

10. Yes another one

and more outrage to boot. On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . . . . until the whole world knows exactly what the US got or maybe got - LOL

I feel safe already knowing that everyone knows.

[blkmusclmachine]

22. .

.

[dipsydoodle]

24. I'd wondered if Boundless Informant might be an anagram

for We're a bunch of ***ts but apparently not.