NSA director speaks at UCLA about agency’s standards, future reforms

Despite controversies over wiretapping and privacy violations, the director of the National Security Agency said in a UCLA discussion Friday that he thinks the NSA is justified in its collection of phone data in the interest of national security.

Adm. Michael S. Rogers, head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, answered questions dealing with past NSA actions and the agency’s role in national security and privacy as part of a discussion arranged by the Burkle Center for International Relations and the UCLA International and Comparative Law Program. About 70 faculty, undergraduate and law students attended the discussion, held at the UCLA School of Law.

The NSA, which is in charge of intelligence gathering and cyber defense, has been criticized in recent years for alleged violations of privacy of First Amendment rights after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the breadth of its data collection by releasing classified documents.

According to the documents Snowden released, the NSA collected billions of phone calls and communications every day around the world, including those of leaders of U.S.-allied countries. Many people have said they are outraged that phone data was collected from U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Rogers said many times that he thinks NSA actions were within the legal framework set by Congress through laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. He added that he thinks the NSA acted responsibly when collecting data from U.S. citizens.

“The NSA follows the law, is accountable to the people, acknowledges its mistakes and doesn’t cut corners,” Rogers said.

Snowden’s actions prompted calls for change in practices and policies, with the Senate moving forward with a bill to reform the way the NSA can operates.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act, or USA FREEDOM Act, would shift phone data collection from the government to the private sector. The data would then only be able to be accessed after court approval. The Senate is scheduled to debate the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 this week.

Rogers said he thinks privacy concerns are unfounded because phone records can only be collected and accessed with approval from FISA courts. He added that he thinks FISA courts do not act as a blank check for NSA investigations.

“In order for the FISA court to approve our investigation, there must be reasonably articulate suspicion,” Rogers said.

Rogers said the FISA courts had refused to grant authorization on several occasions, and he thinks the NSA had to work hard with the Department of Justice to make every case.

However, he also said he thinks the agency was not perfect and that President Barack Obama’s reforms – which included greater executive oversight, transparency and more specific targeting of calls – in January set a higher standard for justifying data collection on U.S. citizens.

Visiting assistant professor Kristen Eichensehr from the UCLA School of Law said she attended the discussion because of Rogers’ central role in U.S. cyber security policy.

She said she also appreciated Rogers’ willingness to answer tough questions, but said she thinks her concerns over a lack of an international cyber security framework were only acknowledged and not addressed.

“I left the event with the sense that despite recognizing the importance of having international agreement on basic rules of the road for cyberspace, the government unfortunately does not have a clear strategy for how to achieve such agreement,” Eichensehr said.

In an answer to Eichensehr’s question, Rogers said he thinks the existing legal framework for dealing with cyber security still has to catch up with technological progress.

Rogers closed the question-and-answer session by saying he thinks people should discuss NSA actions without attacking the other side.

“It is important to us as a nation that we discuss these issues, but it’s difficult to have a dialogue without vilifying those who have different viewpoints,” Rogers said. “We must understand the context in which we operate.”