Former NSA Boss: We Don't Data Mine Our Giant Data Collection, We Just Ask It Questions

from the um,-that's-the-same-thing dept

HAYDEN: It is a successor to the activities we began after 9/11 on President Bush's authority, later became known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program.



So, NSA gets these record and puts them away, puts them in files. They are not touched. So, fears or accusations that the NSA then data mines or trolls through these records, they're just simply not true.



MARTIN: Why would you be collecting this information if you didn't want to use it?



HAYDEN: Well, that's - no, we're going to use it. But we're not going to use it in the way that some people fear. You put these records, you store them, you have them. It's kind of like, I've got the haystack now. And now let's try to find the needle. And you find the needle by asking that data a question. I'm sorry to put it that way, but that's fundamentally what happens. All right. You don't troll through the data looking for patterns or anything like that. The data is set aside. And now I go into that data with a question that - a question that is based on articulable(ph), arguable, predicate to a terrorist nexus. Sorry, long sentence.

MARTIN: May I back up? Do you have to have approval...



HAYDEN: No.



MARTIN: ...from the FISA court...



HAYDEN: No.



MARTIN: ...which is the intelligence surveillance court established in order to go in and ask that question.



You have had a generalized approval, and so you've got to justify the overall approach to the judge. But you do not have to go to the judge, saying, hey, I got this number now. I'll go ahead and get a FISA request written up for you. No, you don't have to do that.

Yeah, well, actually, in some ways, you know, that's actually the literal definition of probable, in probable cause.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

General Michael Hayden, the former head of both the NSA and the CIA, has already been out making silly statements about how the real "harm" in the latest leaks is it shows that the US "can't keep a secret." However, he's now given an even more ridiculous interview trying to defend both the mass dragnet collection of all phone records and the PRISM collection of internet data. In both cases, some of his claims are quite incredible. Let's start with this whopper, in which he claims that they don't do any data mining on the mass dragnet data they collect, they just "ask it questions."I'm not sure if Hayden is just playing dumb or what, but. What he describes as asking it questions is exactly what people are afraid of. It's exactly the kind of data mining that people worry about. On top of that, just the fact that he flat outthat they're putting together the haystack to "try to find the needle" is exactly the kind of issue that people are so concerned about. The whole point of the 4th Amendment is that. You're only supposed to be able to, on narrow circumstances, go looking for the needle with proper oversight. Yet, here, he admits that there's no such oversight once they have that haystack:That should be a "wow" moment right there, because it also appears to contradict President Obama's claim that "if anybody in government wanted to go further than just that top-line data ... they'd have to go back to a federal judge and — and — and indicate why, in fact, they were doing further — further probing." Furthermore, he's basically admitting that they basically give the FISA Court some vague reason why they need every possible record on phone calls, and then there's no oversight by the court on how those are used, other than vague promises from the NSA that they're not being abused for data mining -- but just for "asking questions," which is data mining.Moving on to PRISM. Hayden's responses are equally astounding. He's asked about the fact that the NSA has admitted that they try to make a determination of if the person is foreign and have a system to determine if they're 51% sure that a person is foreign in deciding whether or not to keep their data. As the interviewer notes, 51% "seems mushy." Hayden's response is ridiculous:Um, whether or not that's the standard for probable cause is meaningless. Probable cause is the standard used to determine if someone can be arrested (or to have a search done). It is not the standard for determining if the person is foreign or not, subjecting them to mass surveillance by the NSA. The 4th Amendment requires probable cause for a search, but not probable cause in foreignness, rather probable cause in. Is Hayden honestly suggesting that? Because that's insane.

Filed Under: data mining, michael hayden, nsa, nsa surveillance, probable cause, surveillance