Comment by than
12 years ago
Gen. Keith Alexander, asked about it at a Bloomberg event, denied the accusations.
"I don't know what the report is," Alexander cautioned, adding the NSA does not "have access to Google servers, Yahoo servers." He said the NSA is "not authorized" to do this, and instead, must "go through a court process."
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/keith-alexander-nsa-re...
That's a potentially perfectly accurate statement that doesn't in any way refute the story. The leak indicates they have access to the fiber lines between datacenters, not the servers themselves.
Also, it's GCHQ that broke in, no?
Since he seems to be a pathological liar, how about some waterboarding to help his memory? I'm sure we could clear up any misconceptions about the NSA's activities quickly with this officially-sanctioned (at least by former officials) method of "interrogation", which the US has applied many times in the past (allegedly with great success and little regret).
Don't waterboard him, and he'll tell you whatever he wants you to hear. Waterboard him, and he'll tell you whatever you want to hear.
Questioning him, under any circumstances, is useless. We need to get rid of him instead, and perform an independent investigation. However the circumstances under which such an independent investigation would be useful are limited. When East Germany started to fall, the Stasi started shredding everything they could get their hands on; organizations like this don't allow evidence to survive.
Well given how many times he has been found lying, ...
Nothing he said actually responds to the allegations.
Specifically, he denies direct NSA access to the systems, and says that NSA would need to use a court process to gain such access, but the report is that the UK's GCHQ is actually tapping the systems and the GCHQ is sharing the captured data with NSA.
More importantly, he was never asked if they had access to the information passing _between_ datacenters, and so his reply was technically correct. "We don't collect that under this program", "We don't have access to those _servers_", etc (emphasis added).
Politicians are often adept at replying very carefully to questioning by congress or courts so that they can be entirely truthful when answering your questions, all while avoiding telling you what you really needed to know because you never asked the right question.
while they might not have access to the "Google servers", it now is almost certain they have access to the "Google network" (i.e. fiber cable access). as seen in previous reports, intercepting sea fiber optic traffic between continents seems something the NSA has mastered...
> while they might not have access to the "Google servers", it now is almost certain they have access to the "Google network" (i.e. fiber cable access).
If the article is correct, the NSA does not have that. What they have is an agreement that they can submit search terms and get matching data from a system operated by their British counterpart, GCHQ.
It is GCHQ who, per the article, has a direct tap somewhere inside Google's unencrypted datacenter-to-datacenter communications network.
There have been reports going back to the Echelon days that the NSA and GCHQ collaborate to evade each nation's laws.
The ideas is that US agencies supply the UK with technology and training, the UK collects sigint in the US with US knowledge, then shares intelligence with US agencies.
The US reciprocates by spying on UK citizens and sharing the intelligence with UK agencies.
That way US agencies can say they don't spy on innocent Americans on US soil. But it's just another elaborate deception.
A lot hinges on the definition of "servers" being used. And how the question was put to Alexander. If there's even one alternate interpretation he can say No. Another non-denial denial. He is talking at lawyer-level now. This level of detail is not present in the Politico story.
Not that he would say Yes if we asked in the right way!
Alexander is but one of many Wormtongues striving to bring down Rohan.