Intelligence Lawyer Robert Litt Claims Searching For Possible Privacy Violations Will Violate Privacy

from the route-all-privacy-concerns-to-/dev/null dept

The ODNI's head counsel, Robert Litt, had made statements over the past few months that seem to hint that he's actually some sort of android, rather than a living, breathing human being. Maybe this is what happens to anyone who spends too long on the inside of the intelligence panopticon. When delivered in the real world, arguments that sounded plausible in the echo chamber give off the eerie tone of a not-quite-human "being" badly in need of an empathy chip upgrade.



Case(s) in point:



1. July 23rd - Robert Litt delivers a speech in which he asks this question:

"Why is it that people are willing to expose large quantities of information to private parties but don't want the Government to have the same information?"

In theory, storing the data with the companies, instead of at the NSA, would allow the telcos to serve as a kind of privacy watchdog. They'd be in a position to examine the government's requests for information about their customers and possibly to object to them in court.



But the intelligence lawyers warned that Americans' would be subject to even greater privacy incursions if their personal information were stripped from NSA's control.

Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Bradford Wiegmann, deputy assistant attorney general, told the Committee on Privacy, Technology and the Law today that it would have a “privacy diminishing effect” if intelligence officials were forced to review every piece of data vacuumed up under its internet and phone surveillance programs...



“Attempting to make this determination [identify the number of US persons whose data has been "inadvertently" swept up by various NSA collections] would require the intelligence community to research and review personally identifying information solely for the purpose of complying with the reporting requirements, even if the information has not been determined to contain foreign intelligence,” they argued. “Such an effort would conflict with our efforts to protect privacy...”



Litt, while addressing the panel, added that such a requirement “would perversely” undermine privacy.

“The privacy has already been violated,” he said.

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

Itsounds reasonable until you consider what's being asked. "Why do peoplegive up information in exchange for services they find appealing/ useful but remain opposed tohaving their data harvested by a secretive government agency?" There's adifference between the two, but Litt's cyborg mind fails to spot the gap. Data is data, he argues. If you're already sharing, why not let the government have a taste? [Of course, the whole argument is largely moot as the government already has access to this data anyway.]2. November 5th - While meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Litt makes this claim In short, storing metadata at a neutral site would somehow result inprivacy violations than it would in the [LOL] careful stewardship of the NSA. Limited access to metadata, according to robotic-overlord-in-waiting Robert Litt, is more harmful to Americans' privacy than potentially unlimited access to data stores onsite.There's a hole in Litt's argument you could drive a truckload of logic through. Kevin Bankston steps up and takes the wheel.Litt must be an adherent of the Rogers Theorem , which states that privacy violations don't actually occur until they're noticed. That's the only way he could make such an argument with a straight face (although being not quite human probably helps).The ODNI's arguments are beginning to resemble the outer limits of quantum mechanics, in which privacy violations are causedby the wholesale amassing of pterabytes of data,by NSA analysts checking to see if anything American has been inadvertently snagged in the NSA's enormous baleen. [ALL METAPHORS ARE GO.]In other words, the outcome is changed by the measurement . Tons of data grabbed indiscriminately? No privacy issues. Peering into said tonnage for specifics? Privacy violations galore.No mention is made of maybe putting some effort into refining its programs or dialing back its collections. Nope, to do so is to subject America to somewhere between 0 and 54 terrorist attacks over the next dozen years. This much we can be sure of because… well, just believe the nice "man" in suit, OK? The NSA's defenders have worked very hard to come up with dozens of tenuous justifications for its data dragnet and they don't need the very violated American public casting aspersion on the agency's lack of finesse.This is what happens when the talking points begin suffering routine catastrophic failure . The NSA's defenders are reduced to responding like quarreling schoolchildren: "No,violating privacy!" How pathetic.

Filed Under: nsa, nsa surveillance, privacy, robert litt