[jcox92]

Agreed, but I still think it bears some relevance in this situation. Is any security added by making these programs and processes secret? What would the security issues be if everyone knew exactly what was being collected, when it could be accessed, and the requisite processes needed to access it?

[tptacek]

Cases before FISC present details of specific sources and methods and specific targets of foreign surveillance that don't know NSA is "on to them". Those proceedings were never going to be public. Similar things happen in domestic cases, which are often sealed.

[jcox92]

I should make a distinction between the data itself and the processes through which the data is collected and used. I'm not saying that the data related to every case should be made public. I'm just wondering why the processes to collect and use the data need to be secret. I think the process should be transparent without the data itself being public.

[a3n]

Those sorts of specifics don't need to be revealed, I think everyone understands that specific investigations of specific individuals are done secretly. It's the dragnet that's causing indignation.