The complexityof the National Security Agencys spying programs has made some of its ex-technical experts the most dangerous critics since they are among the few whounderstandthe potential totalitarian risks involved, as ex-NSA analyst William Binney showed in an interview with journalist Lars Schall. <\/p>\n
By Lars Schall <\/p>\n
William Binney, who spent 36 years in the National Security Agency rising to become the NSAs technical director for intelligence, has emerged as one of the most knowledgeable critics of excesses in the NSAs spying programs, some of which he says managed to both violate the U.S. Constitution and prove inefficient in tracking terrorists. <\/p>\n
Binney has been described as one of the best analysts in NSAs history combining expertise in intelligence analysis, traffic analysis, systems analysis, knowledge management and mathematics (including set theory, number theory and probability). He resigned in October 2001 and has since criticized the NSAs massive monitoring programs. After leaving the NSA, he co-founded Entity Mapping, LLC, a private intelligence agency, together with fellow NSA whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe. <\/p>\n
Former National Security Agency official William Binney sitting in the offices of Democracy Now! in New York City. (Photo credit: Jacob Appelbaum) <\/p>\n
Lars Schall: You were invited this year as a witness by the NSA commission of the German parliament, the Bundestag. How has it been to speak there and what did you try to get across? <\/p>\n
William Binney: I was there for about six hours testifying with a half hour break in the middle. So it was quite intense. There were so many questions. Some of them I didnt have answers for because I didnt have knowledge about it, and I tried to make those clear and tried to give them information about things I knew personally. I didnt want to extrapolate beyond that. <\/p>\n
Initially, they were asking questions about my background which was, I guess, setting the stage for the follow on questions, but in the long run they were interested in the relationships with the BND and the NSA. I think part of the break in the middle had to do with something that happened there and that a BND person was implicated in spying on the commission when it was investigating the relationship, and they were also passing that information to NSA, at least that was alleged at that time, I dont know if thats true or not. <\/p>\n
Anyway, it was quite lengthy and very thorough, and my whole point was to try to get across to them that what NSA and the intelligence community in the Five Eyes, at least, and probably in some of the other countries (I dont know exactly which ones and Ive made this clear, but I think theyre not doing it alone) is the idea of collecting massive amounts of data is just like the STASI except this time I kind of tried to get across to them that its like the STASI on super steroids. <\/p>\n
As Wolfgang Schmidt, the former lieutenant colonel of East German STASI, commented about NSAs surveillance program: For us, this would have been a dream come true. Well, thats the whole point of it, its so invasive, its digital surveillance on a massive scale, and I tried to get that across to them. Because this is basically a fundamental threat to our democracy and every democracy around the world. You know, I call it over here in the United States the greatest threat to our democracy since our Civil War. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more here: <\/p>\n
Plumbing the Depths of NSAs Spying<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The complexityof the National Security Agencys spying programs has made some of its ex-technical experts the most dangerous critics since they are among the few whounderstandthe potential totalitarian risks involved, as ex-NSA analyst William Binney showed in an interview with journalist Lars Schall. By Lars Schall William Binney, who spent 36 years in the National Security Agency rising to become the NSAs technical director for intelligence, has emerged as one of the most knowledgeable critics of excesses in the NSAs spying programs, some of which he says managed to both violate the U.S. Constitution and prove inefficient in tracking terrorists. Continue reading