June 18, 2018
Opinion Latest News | Poll Questions | Susan Collins | Tiny House Surprise | Stephen King

NSA: Review, release, repeat

HANDOUT | Reuters
HANDOUT | Reuters
An undated aerial handout photo shows the National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters building in Fort Meade, Maryland.

The National Security Agency is a huge organization of human beings with the same capacity to misunderstand, miscommunicate and misbehave as the rest of us.

That has been one lesson from months of revelations about the secretive intelligence organization. Nothing has demonstrated a J. Edgar Hoover-style conspiracy to abuse the extraordinary amount of information the NSA can access. But the revelations have underscored the importance of imposing more meaningful checks on the agency’s activities.

The latest revelations date to 2009, when the Justice Department discovered that the NSA had improperly sorted through telephone call records, so-called metadata the government collects in bulk but is supposed to use only in certain circumstances. An “alert list” contained numbers that hadn’t been vetted according to a legal standard agents must meet to justify NSA scrutiny. Though it appears that NSA agents still had to meet that standard to run intensive analysis on any phone numbers in the database, the disclosure infuriated Judge Reggie B. Walton, a member of the NSA’s judicial overseer, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In a related filing, the NSA also admitted that its agents violated the rules at other points in the collection program, apparently because the agents didn’t understand that they were working with that group of records. In other words, lacking a good understanding of how the complex systems worked and what the rules were and without satisfactory systems to protect sensitive records, the agency messed up.

Lawmakers should deal with the problem of overclassification across the government. President Obama, meanwhile, should give explicit instructions to a review board he convened. Weighing the effectiveness of government information-gathering programs against their privacy impact should be a top concern; Congress and the public should hear directly from the review board about striking that balance as Congress and the public consider reforms.

The Washington Post (Sept. 16)

Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

You may also like