October 12, 2014
The Great Depression, the conflicts that tested the Republic to its foundations, and the struggle
to maintain the commitment to freedom and democracy against powerful interests.
The highly decorated Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified in 1934 that he had
been recruited by the representatives of powerful industrialists who asked him to bring the Bonus
Army back to Washington and take the government over by force from then President Franklin Roosevelt.
This was a scheme that was known as
The Business Plot.
These wealthy business people were not prosecuted and the incident was quietly swept aside in
the interest of domestic confidence and peace.
If Not At Home, Then the Establishment of Oligarchy
AbroadAfter the failure to overturn democracy in the US, some in the American 'One Percent'
became powerful supporters and business associates of Mussolini, and even of the German Third Reich.
This business relationship continued long after the criminal brutality of these regimes had become
quite obvious to all civilized people.
Their involvement in the rise and promotion of fascist ideology seems to have been largely forgotten.
Privacy is the space that defines the will of the individual, which sets the area that says,
'this is mine, because this is me.'
Privacy is the 'outer skin' of the self.
I may wish to share my space to varying degrees with family, friends, and acquaintances. If I
have the good sense I may even wish to open my heart and live in a continuing act of worship and
companionship with my Creator.
But that choice to conform myself to His will and open my thoughts and heart to Him, is mine.
This is a gift that is hard to comprehend, but which grants us the intimacy of His love, rather
than objectification as a possession, or a thing to be owned.
It is His most supreme condescension that He grants us the power to resist, to say no, to be
other and apart from Him if we so choose. He makes us the sovereigns of a portion of His being,
and says, you are free. And in His caring for another grants us a soul of our
own. This is the essence of our being, and the wellspring of our existence.
What kind of love is in thrall to the beloved, which has no choice, no self identity that it
may give to another, freely? What are we to an all-powerful God, except that which He has granted
to us, forever, as ours alone and ours to give?
A tyrannical State, which has no virtuous restraint, by its very definition wishes to insert
itself into this private space, not as a gracious God who grants us the will to either open or close
the most private recesses of our heart to Him, but rather to take by force that which marks our
individuality. It would be as a god, but on its own perverse and darker terms. It seeks to possess,
uncaring, which is the opposite of love.
Privacy and the primacy of the individual is no gift from the State, but a recognition of what
has been defined as 'an inalienable right' precisely because it is not granted by the State, but
something higher, superior to an earthly power.
Surveillance, on an indiscriminate and massive scale by an increasingly intrusive State, is not
a benign act in the cause of homeland protection. It is not an excess of zeal among well meaning
bureaucrats. It is the very definition of statism.
It is an act of the will to power of the State over the individual, to claim
that last bastion of privacy that marks the least amount of space that a person may occupy as their
own. And it is relentless in its jealousy, expediency and ownership. It asserts the supremacy of
power, and takes all power to itself.
The violation of the individual is not incidental to the establishment of a tyranny. It is essential.
"If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers
of objective and eternal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes
and activity.
From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the
right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.
"
Benito Mussolini, Diuturna
It is the State's way of asserting that all that we have, all that we are, all that we may do
or think, belongs to them at their unquestioned discretion and expediency.
It is the will to power, and the way of earthly death. And we who belong to the Lord can have
no part of it, for He is ours and we are His. He calls us by name, and we hear His voice.
Statists of both the left and right seek to elevate the State to an unnatural priority over all
things free and individual, since individual choice is inseparable from any notion of freedom. Therefore
they must subordinate the individual to the expediency of the State not only in so called 'emergencies'
but over time as a matter of their continuing policy.
One sees this theme of the primacy of state sanctioned organizations over people today. This
is the basis of the 'corporatism' that seems so bizarre, but that we are already seeing creep into
our legal judgments.
Therefore Corporations will have the rights of people and beyond. They are relatively free of
the most important civic obligations, and are granted privileges and perquisites beyond the individual.
Under a statism that claims the definition of all value as its prerogative, some are more equal
than others, and justice is by definition at the discretion of the State.
Not to belabor the point, but as an aside this is why Alan Greenspan said that all Statists react
to gold with an almost hysterical antagonism. Gold, having no counterparty risk, has been historically
regarded as a natural and independent measure of economic value and store of wealth.
I've an
article in the new issue of The National Interest looking at various liberal critiques
of Snowden and Greenwald, and finding them wanting. CT readers will have seen some of the arguments
in earlier form; I think that they're stronger when they are joined together (and certainly they
should be better written; it's nice to have the time to write a proper essay). I don't imagine that
the various people whom I take on will be happy, but they shouldn't be; they're guilty of some quite
wretched writing and thinking. More than anything else, like
Corey
I'm dismayed at the current low quality of mainstream liberal thinking.
A politician wishes for her adversaries to be stupid, that they will make blunders. An intellectual
wishes for her adversaries to be brilliant, that they will find the holes in her own arguments and
oblige her to remedy them. I aspire towards the latter, not the former, but I'm not getting my wish.
Over the last fifteen months, the columns and op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Washington
Post have bulged with the compressed flatulence of commentators intent on dismissing warnings
about encroachments on civil liberties. Indeed, in recent months soi-disant liberal intellectuals
such as Sean Wilentz, George Packer and Michael Kinsley have employed the Edward Snowden affair
to mount a fresh series of attacks. They claim that Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and those associated
with them neither respect democracy nor understand political responsibility.
These claims rest on willful misreading, quote clipping and the systematic evasion of crucial
questions. Yet their problems go deeper than sloppy practice and shoddy logic.
Rich Puchalsky 10.27.14 at
11:03 pm
"Yet this does not disconcert much of the liberal media elite. Many writers who used to
focus on bashing Bush for his transgressions now direct their energies against those who are
sounding alarms about the pervasiveness of the national-security state."It's not just
the elite. I can't wait for the Lawyers, Guns, and Money get-out-the-vote drive. We'll
have to see whether the slogan is "Vote, Stupid Purity Trolls" or "The Lesser Evil Commands".
Maybe just two-tone signs labeling their target voters "Dope" and "Deranged".
Dr. Hilarius 10.27.14 at 11:44 pm
An excellent analysis and summation.Any defense of the national security state requires
the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task.
Having lived through Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention many smaller
governmental adventures) I see no evidence of competence. Instead, it's repetitive failures
of analysis and imagination no matter how much raw intelligence is gathered.
Nor is there any evidence that existing oversight mechanisms function as intended. Recent
revelations about the CIA spying on the Senate should be enough to dispel the idea that leakers
have no role to play.
Kinsley is particularly loathsome. His position is little more than "your betters know best"
and that the state's critics are guttersnipes needing to be kicked to the curb. Kinsley doesn't
need a coherent position, his goal is to be a spokesman for the better sorts, nothing more.
Collin Street 10.27.14 at 11:53 pm
Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum,
that the present apparatus is competent at its task
Dunning-Kruger, innit. There are actually pretty good reasons to believe that strategic intelligence-gathering
is pretty much pointless (because your strategic limitations and abilities by-definition
permeate your society and are thus clearly visible through open sources), so you'd expect
in that case that the only people who'd support secret strategic intelligence-gathering
would be people who don't have a fucking clue.
[specifically, I suspect that secret strategic intelligence gathering is particularly attractive
to people who lack the ability to discern people's motivations and ability through normal face-to-face
channels and the like...
... which is to say people with empathy problems. Which is something that crops
up in other contexts and may help explain certain political tendencies intelligence agencies
tend to share.]
Thornton Hall 10.28.14 at 12:03 am
This sentence is false and a willful distortion mixing legality and politics to elide the basic
fact that the Justice Department has not prosecuted anyone who did not break the law:
The continued efforts of U.S. prosecutors to redefine the politics of leaking so as to
indict journalists as well as their sources suggest that Greenwald had every right to be
worried and angry.
Meanwhile, ever since Mark Felt blew the whistle on a psychopath and the result was the deification
of Bob Woodward, the American elite has been utterly confused about the role of journalism in
a democracy.
That your essay mixes Professor Wilentz with the father of #Slatepitch, and an archetypical
"even the liberal New Republic…" journalist as if they all had the same job description is part
and parcel of this ongoing inability to separate the job of selling newspapers from the job
of public intellectual.
Glenn Greenwald is a "journalist" crank who is simply not in a category that overlaps with
Daniel Ellsberg. Snowden is in the same category as Ellsberg, and Packer is right to note that
he does not compare particularly well. But then Packer's analysis failed to explain why Snowden
needed the judgment and gravitas of Ellsburg. And it was a side point in any case, because Packer's
actual thesis was the sublimely stupid point that only "objective" journalism can be trusted
to do leaks right.
The other unfortunate confusion I see in the essay is the mixing of domestic and foreign
policy. There is not a single thing about the New Deal that informs opinion about Edward Snowden.
Nothing. What does regulating poultry production have to do with killing Iraqis? What does the
Civilian Conservation Core have to do with drone strikes in Pakistan? The Four Freedom speech
was a pivot from domestic to foreign policy given in 1941. Freedom from Want was the New Deal.
Freedom of Speech was about the looming conflict with fascism, not domestic policy.
Both confusions – the failure to recognize journalists as pawns selling newspapers and the
failure to understand that foreign policy and liberalism do not have to be linked – result when
the blind spots of the press and the academy overlap. In areas where journalists and the academy
provide checks and balances to each other they tend to do well. Edward Snowden represents the
apex of the overlap between academic and journalistic obsessions, and so no one is there to
say: "Hey, the top freedom concerns of journalists and professors are not synonymous with freedom
writ large or with liberalism.
Daniel Nexon 10.28.14 at 12:48 am
Liked the piece, even though we probably come down differently on some of the merits.
I wonder if the explanation isn't simpler. A number of what you term "national security liberals"
have served in government and held clearances. Many of them - and here I include myself - took
seriously that obligation. And so there's a certain degree of innate discomfort with the whole
business of leaks, let alone those that don't seem narrowly tailored. Wikileaks was not. Snowden's
leaks included par-for-the-course foreign-intelligence gathering (and this sets aside his escape
to Hong Kong and subsequent decision to accept asylum from the Russia Federation).
I recognize that there's a larger argument that you've made about how the trans-nationalization
of intelligence gathering - centered on the US - changes the moral equation for some of these
considerations. I don't want to debate that claim here. The point is that you can be a civil-liberties
liberal, believe that some of the disclosures have served the public interest, and still feel
deeply discomforted with the cast of characters.
Barry, 10.28.14 at 1:09 am
" Indeed, in recent months soi-disant liberal intellectuals such as Sean Wilentz, George Packer
and Michael Kinsley …"Kinsley is a hack who occasionally coins a good term. At 'Even the
Liberal' New Republic, he was a biddable wh*re for a vile man, Peretz. At Slate, he took the
same attitude, preferring snark to truth, and built it into the foundations.
Packer is not an intellectual, either. He's a cheerleader for war who has just enough give-a-sh*t
to right a book explaining the problems, long after it was clear to others that things had failed.
I don't know much about Sean Wilentz, except that he's a long time 'cultural editor' at 'Even
the Liberal' New Republic under Peretz, which is a strike against him. Heck, it's two strikes.
BTW, after Watergate, the press did know its role in democracy – the elites are really
against it. IIRC, Whatshername the owner of the WaPo actually praised 'responsible journalism'
not too long afterwards.
Soulskill, October 26, 2014
TheRealHocusLocus writes:
We are witness to a historic first: an individual charged with espionage and actively sought
by the United States government has been (virtually) invited to speak at Harvard Law School,
with applause. [Note: all of the following links go to different parts of a long YouTube
video.] HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig
conducted the hour-long interview last Monday with a list of questions by himself and his
students.
Some interesting segments from the interview include: Snowden's assertion that
mass domestic intercept is an
"unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment; that it also
violates "natural rights" that
cannot be voted away even by the majority; a claim that broad surveillance detracts from
the ability to monitor specific targets
such as the Boston Marathon bombers;
him calling out Congress for
not holding Clapper accountable for misstatements; and his lament that
contractors are exempt from whistleblower
protection though they do swear an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both
foreign and domestic.
These points have been brought up before. But what may be most interesting to these students
is Snowden's suggestion that a defendant under the Espionage Act should be permitted to present
an argument before a jury that the act was committed "in the public interest." Could this help
ensure a fair trial for whistleblowers whose testimony reveals Constitutional violation?
Tom Engelhardt: Could you start by laying out briefly what you think we've learned
from Edward Snowden about how our world really works?Laura Poitras: The most
striking thing Snowden has revealed is the depth of what the NSA and the Five Eyes countries [Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, and the U.S.] are doing, their hunger for all data, for
total bulk dragnet surveillance where they try to collect all communications and do it all sorts
of different ways. Their ethos is "collect it all."
I worked on a
story with Jim Risen of the New York Times about a document - a four-year plan for
signals intelligence - in which they describe the era as being "the golden age of signals intelligence."
For them, that's what the Internet is: the basis for a golden age to spy on everyone.
This focus on bulk, dragnet, suspicionless surveillance of the planet is certainly what's most
staggering. There were many programs that did that. In addition, you have both the NSA and the GCHQ
[British intelligence] doing things like targeting engineers at telecoms. There was an
article published at The Intercept that cited an NSA document Snowden provided, part
of which was titled "I Hunt Sysadmins" [systems administrators]. They try to find the custodians
of information, the people who are the gateway to customer data, and target them. So there's
this passive collection of everything, and then things that they can't get that way, they go after
in other ways.
I
think one of the most shocking things is how little our elected officials knew about what the NSA
was doing. Congress is learning from the reporting and that's staggering. Snowden and [former NSA
employee] William Binney, who's also in the film as a whistleblower from a different generation,
are technical people who understand the dangers. We laypeople may have some understanding of these
technologies, but they really grasp the dangers of how they can be used.
One of the most frightening things, I think, is the capacity for retroactive searching, so
you can go back in time and trace who someone is in contact with and where they've been. Certainly,
when it comes to my profession as a journalist, that allows the government to trace what you're
reporting, who you're talking to, and where you've been.
So no matter whether or not I have a commitment to protect my sources, the government may still
have information that might allow them to identify whom I'm talking to.
On the one hand, the Mail and others on the right of centre passionately resist the
role of the state (most recently in regulating
newspapers), but on the
other are relaxed about a massive extension of the state's power over individuals' lives. In normal
circumstances, this would incur the wrath of those papers. But these are not normal circumstances
and so the state is privileged, in this instance, over the individual. Funny, that.
HendersonField,
13 October
2013 2:38am
The behaviour of much of the British press over the last week has been bewilderingly
inconsistent. Papers that are against the power of the state as a defining editorial principle
have swung behind the government and MI5 to attack the Guardian's publication of the Snowden
leaks and have come close to calling for the paper's prosecution.
But The Guardian has taken the exact opposite position. It has damned its rivals for their
breaches of personal privacy, whilst being unforgivably reckless about the security of everyone
in Britain by publishing the Manning and Snowden leaks.
At least The News of the World, for all the hurt it caused to so many individuals, never
risked giving material assistance to our terrorist and totalitarian enemies.
tom666 ->
HendersonField ,
13 October
2013 3:54am
The Guardian never created the risk of sensitive material being given to terrorists. This risk
was created by the inability of our security services (a misnomer if ever there was one) to
actually keep their secrets secure.Snowden could have attempted to sell this material to
the highest bidder on the 'open market' and that could have resulted in the material ending
up with terrorists.
Instead, being a man of principle, he brought the material to highly respected international
news organisations such as the Guardian and the New York Times.
As Vince Cable agreed, these news organisations have served an invaluable public service
in bringing the issue to public attention. Not only have these publications informed the public
what the government has been doing, they apparently informed government what government has
been doing!
cluedout
, 13
October 2013 4:13am
Hugely depressing: in the face of threatened further restrictions on it, a press that should
be united up in arms against them, is infighting.
Papers that should be
against the power of the state as a defining editorial principle have swung behind the
government
, insofar as they put forward a royal charter for press regulation at all, albeit as an alternative
to the one the government seeks to sic on them. That a few of them (Guardian, Independent and
Financial Times) seem ready to support the government's charter, should beggar belief. Sadly,
the UK is so acclimatized to speech restriction, that hardly an eyelid is raised at such sniveling
submission. Heck, much of the public seem in favor. 'Shut it. Speak when spoken to. Good manners.
Obey orders. Follow the leader. Big Brother knows best.
The Guardian wants state regulation of the press, insofar as it will weaken the voice of
the 'rightist' majority whom it opposes; the Mail wants state prosecution of the press insofar
as it will weaken the voice of the 'leftist' majority whom it opposes. The state laughs at this
disparity, emboldened to escalate it's action against the press it loathes.
In the US, attempts to regulate the press would violate the Constitution's primary Amendment;
any hope that security can be balanced with liberty depends on the public's right to a press
free from state interference.
When the press is under threat of state regulation; the last thing it wants to do is further
antagonize said state. Supporting ongoing publication of the state's official secrets seems
bound to do what the press least wants to do; and what may seem to support the state's case
that the press must be restricted (by state regulation). When the paper publishing those state
secrets is one that's been more amenable to state regulation than most, the irony seems hard
to escape. And the reluctance of most publishers to support such continued publication is only
to be expected.
It seems sad that the Guardian failed to distinguish a need for the state to punish criminal
activity by (some of) the press ('phone hacking', etc.), from the state's supposed need to regulate
(all of) the press. If the Guardian had stuck to it's guns over it's expose of press wrong doing,
while resolutely opposing Leveson and press regulation, it could hold it's head high. It let
it's own (supposed) interest in curbing the type of journalism it largely reviles (Mail, Sun,
Express..), trump (what bloody well should be) it's interest in a (regulation) free press.
BunchaTuesdays,
13 October
2013 4:53am
This article though well meaning misses the point, the storm that has followed Chris Huhne's
revelations is most welcome, and should be celebrated.Despite 3 1/2 months of a UK gov't
enforced media blackout, more big fat juicy worms have wriggled free, Dacre & the rest of the
Rabid Right in their zeal to settle a score (Leveson) have helped immeasurably,
The members of the National Security Council who had been kept in the dark, must have been
more than a little pissed off, to find out that they had no knowledge of NSA/ GCHQ's capabilities/activities,
until they read about it in the Guardian, oh to have been a fly on the wall at the meeting that
followed !.
More people are aware now that the Snowden revelations were deliberately kept out of the
news, many must be wondering what the gov't have got to hide,
This article is also guilty of accepting the official line routinely trotted out that it's
a balance of privacy and security, really ?
There is no f..king balance, for we have neither privacy nor security !. Just a
huge f..king bill for this dystopian surveillance system that has been unleashed upon us.
What kind of security necessitates the right to a private life - without a referendum - is
without our knowledge stolen from us ?.
Who the f..k had the 'right' to authorise that decision ?.
9/11 & 7/7 should never have happened, to find out why read the official reports published
after each atrocity, and then you'll understand that there is no war on terror, only a war on
our freedom & civil liberties, and if that isn't bad enough, these out of control monsters are
making us pay the bill.
To all whistle-blowers past present and future, a very big thank you.
prebender,
13 October
2013 9:07am
The rancour stems from the fact that there is no reasonable excuse for the behaviour of the
authorities. the line between keeping us safe and the systemic spying on innocent citizens has
been blurred and unable to justify their actions, they are looking for new victims.Edward
Snowden has done us all a huge service by his revelations
The key issue here is "Who is serving whom ?". Are intelligence agencies a tool of oligarchy or
not. And you probably already know the answer.
First, what could we do to curb comprehensive surveillance of the net? The internet engineering
community seems determined to do something about it. In its current form, the network is wide open
to snooping, because most of its operations are not encrypted. At the
Vancouver 2013 meeting of the Internet Engineering
Task Force there were discussions about ways of inserting so much cryptographic treacle into
the network's operations that the NSA would have to work much harder to surveil it, thereby forcing
snoopers to adopt more targeted approaches that would be amenable to credible legal oversight. This
won't be easy to do, but there's enough technical ingenuity in the community to pull it off.
Even if they did, however, that wouldn't be the end of the matter, because lots of unsavoury
things go on in cyberspace, and it would be unthinkable not to allow access to communications for
law enforcement and national security purposes. Which means that democracies need oversight regimes
that are effective, technically competent and enjoy public trust. The fallout from Snowden suggests
that the oversight regimes in most democracies currently lack some or all of these properties. Fixing
that requires political action, and therein lies our biggest problem.
The most depressing thing about the political response to the revelations is how crass and simplistic
they have been. First we had the yah-boo phase: Snowden was a traitor; the revelations dramatically
undermined "national security"; anyone who applauds what he did is a naive idiot; if you have nothing
to hide then you have nothing to fear, etc. These are the philosophical equivalent of the debates
that go on in bars after Premier League matches.
The good news is that we have moved on a bit from such inanities. The political debate is now
framed in terms of a "balance" to be struck between security and privacy, as if it were a matter
of piling fruit on both sides of weighing scales and seeing which way the needle points. But security
and privacy are very different concepts. Security is a function of two things: the scale of a possible
harm and the probability that it will happen. Some possible dangers are so great that even if their
probability is low then extreme measures are justified. Other potential harms are smaller but more
probable. In thinking about surveillance and counter-terrorism we need some way of reaching collectively
agreed judgments about how the "balance" should be struck.
Likewise privacy has a value for both individuals and for society as a whole; it is also culturally
and domain-dependent (we have different expectations of privacy in different locations). And the
standard official line on privacy at the moment – that "people obviously don't care much about it,
otherwise they wouldn't be on Facebook" – won't wash, because people give their consent to Facebook,
whereas none of us clicked "agree" to the hoovering up of our communications data.
Finally, there's the question that is never discussed. Is this bulk surveillance actually effective?
Is there credible evidence – as distinct from bland assurances by officials – that it actually works?
Why, despite all the snooping, for example, did our intelligence services not pick up the Islamic
State threat? And
how cost-effective is it? The US currently spends over $100bn a year on counter-terrorism. God
alone knows how much the UK spends. Are we getting real value for all this taxpayers' money? I'd
like to know. Wouldn't you?
AmyInNH
, 19
October 2014 1:42am
ps - Hayden has finally calmed down and acknowledged, mass surveillance and privacy rights are
at direct odds with each other.
Warrants for probable cause was the balance.
imipak
, 19
October 2014 2:52am
If the good guys (whoever they may be, I'm unsure at the moment I know of any) can break in,
then so can the bad guys. That's simply a fact of life. For every theft prevented, a theft or
ten may take place for precisely the same reason. For every time a cop rescues a kidnap victim
by intercepting communications, a predator will locate a victim to kidnap by precisely the same
strategy.This is no different from the argument over guns. They have to be put beyond the
reach of everyone, America is what happens when you don't.
Some might argue that the police need these tools. No they don't. The French lacked any form
of encryption or privacy for individuals for a long time. Can you show me the case files where
this mattered? Can you point to crime statistics where the lack of person-to-person security
in France demonstrably resulted in lower crime rates or greater clean-up rates than achieved
in nations where PGP (PGPi in Europe, for patent reasons) was available for download?
Rather, consider this. Each and every major miscarriage of justice - in the US, UK, France,
or anywhere else - can be linked directly to an urge to close a case quickly rather than correctly.
Every single time the police take short-cuts, it ends in tragedy for those wrongly accused.
You don't want to give the police even more short-cuts, you want to force them to carry out
greater diligence, more thorough scrutiny, more substantial policing. In other words, you want
evidence. Hard evidence.
No. Giving police or anyone else back-doors into the Internet is a recipe for disaster. Those
back-doors will find their way to cybercriminals and foreign cyberwarfare units -- the guys
you really do NOT want being able to manipulate the computers at a major national bank or an
Internet-connected nuclear power plant. If the police can intercept, then criminals can inject.
Too bad if you don't like it, if you enter that kind of an arms race, you WILL lose. Even if
you win, you will still lose.
Police should be better-funded, better-staffed and better-equipt.
None of this 12-marker DNA carp by some back-alley sequencing vendor, each regional police
force should have their own microarray sequencer and supporting hardware, with their own on-staff
expert and on-staff assistants.
None of this external forensics nonsense, they should have their own chemistry lab, their
own ballistics lab -- whatever they need, they should have it. Right there, right then, with
the experts required on-hand. No delays, no G4S mishaps, no risks of miscommunication, no doing
things on the cheap.
If you're going to do it, do it right.
No police force should ever be "stretched". No volunteers should ever be needed. Give each
police force the money and power to do the job needed, with quality.
Those, ultimately, are your choices for law enforcement. A cheap, penny-pinching service
that likes hacking Internet traffic and doesn't give a damn about wrongful arrests, OR an expensive,
elite service that likes being damn-near perfect on damn-near everything and removes actual
bad guys from the streets.
If you choose the latter, then the Internet Problem is simple. Everything should be bullet-proof.
From home users to Home Office users, nobody breaks in. No way, no how.
Can it be done? It's not easy. Only One Time Pads are provably unbreakable, but they're also
provably worthless. You can, however, get as close as you like. And, with modern understanding
of writing secure software, that's very close indeed. It won't be bomb-proof, but it will be
bullet-proof. And that's good enough. Even for those nuclear power stations stupid enough to
go on the Internet.
Jacobsadder
, 19
October 2014 3:01am
"Mercifully, we have moved on a bit since then. The important thing now, it seems to
me, is to consider a new question: given what we now know, what should we do about it? What
could we realistically do? Will we, in fact, do anything? And if the latter, where are we
heading as democracies?"
Do we need to do anything about it? The ability to spy on individual personal information
is one thing but what they do with the information gleaned is entirely another. Just a hypothetical
example, if I sent an email to a friend telling him/her that I have some dodgy 'whiskey galore'
type beverage for sale cheap and the next day the police swooped down on me and tried arrested
me for said offense, then I'd know the authorities obtained that information by invading my
privacy. If that became a common phenomenon then I'd suggest that a disgruntled public just
might start to mount a mass misinformation email, text, social media campaign just to piss them
off. Can you imagine all those millions of misleading messages being swept up by the authorities
and the time it'd take for them to sift through looking for something meaningful? I should imagine
they have enough difficulty now, so prolifigate are messages sent thus far, which is precisely
why they failed to recognise the ISIS threat.
From a personal perspective I don't mind them learning what colour socks I wear from my emails
- obviously I'd prefer them not to snoop, but if they must then I'd be more worried about how
they attempted to use that information against me.
From the perspective of identifying threats to national or global security, then the same
pretty much applies. The word 'bananas' may become code for AK47's for all I know, for one day
at least. That's the problem with surveillance, counter surveillance, and counter counter surveillance,
each method used in terms of investigation will inevitably be countered by other methods in
terms of perpetration.
In the final analysis, all will have to depend on good ol' fashioned police work using a
multitude of methods to detect and usurp the eternal Lex Luthers of this world. In the meantime,
anyone wanna buy some cheap Glenmorangie? We'll drink a toast to the memory of Alan Turing who'll
no doubt be up above pissing his sides at the lunacy of it all.
IGiveTheWatchToYou
, 19 October
2014 3:09am
If we do the sensible thing and encrypt the web we should at least make sure that the NSA &
GCHQ don't still have access to the development of algorithms. It wasn't till May this year
that
Congress supposedly blocked the NSA from meddling with encryption standards. I was almost
optimistic till I read this -
"Having lost a public battle in the 1990s to insert its own "back door" in all encryption,
it set out to accomplish the same goal by stealth. The agency, according to the documents
and interviews with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers to break
codes, and began
collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points
into their products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated."
They've been subverting encryption practice since the 90s "covertly introducing weaknesses."
They're way ahead of the rest of us in cracking encryption when we use it. And they''re still
threatening and bribing foreign companies to put in backdoors. It's gone way beyond reasonable.
What use is private data if some stranger has a copy of it? Especially if the stranger is an
inherently hostile and unaccountable government agency.
Even if we do encrypt something - "The N.S.A. hacked into target computers to snare messages
before they were encrypted."
All our base are belong to them.
If we want reliable encryption clearly we have to cripple the NSA and GCHQ first. Sack 90%
of them and cut their budget by the same, raid their data centres and erase intel gathered on
every citizen who's not under investigation or charge, find out what they've backdoored under
court warrants, amnesty & meaningful jailtime, and impeach the FVEY ringleaders and waterbucket
challenge some confessions out of them. It's either that or mission creep into a pretty obvious
totalitarian future.
Albs
, 19 October
2014 3:20am
"if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" [or other shite along the
same lines]
Strange how times have changed and things have turned around. I never recall western governments
in the 80s having expressed the same opinion when the Stasi had their extensive and subversive
surveillance system on the go.
'Kin hypocrites.
SteB1
, 19 October
2014 4:23am
What excellent analysis from John Naughton. It's a breath of fresh air in all the cloying nonsense
about this matter.
Finally, there's the question that is never discussed. Is this bulk surveillance actually
effective? Is there credible evidence – as distinct from bland assurances by officials –
that it actually works? Why, despite all the snooping, for example, did our intelligence
services not pick up the Islamic State threat? And how cost-effective is it? The US currently
spends over $100bn a year on counter-terrorism. God alone knows how much the UK spends.
Are we getting real value for all this taxpayers' money? I'd like to know. Wouldn't you?
Yes, this is my concern, and what I'd like to know. However my very strong impression is
that mass intelligence gathering might actually be counter-productive, and less effective than
old fashioned targeted intelligence. This is where I believe the circumstantial evidence points
to.
It defies common sense that the authorities already overlook so many leads, because they
can't follow up everything, yet they also bizarrely claim that if they collect far more irrelevant
data, that somehow the relevant date will become more apparent. It's clear the authorities have
to prioritize what intelligence is followed up, and naturally many mistakes are made. The more
data you have, the more mistakes you will make. Straight forward probability tells you that.
cpdukes
->
SteB1 ,
19 October
2014 3:00pm
You give credit where none is due. Are these governments and agencies actually pursuing
intelligence for the purposes they state? Where is the concrete evidence? Are money, power
and control more likely their motivations?
edgeofdrabness
->
SteB1 ,
19 October
2014 5:41pm
there's the question that is never discussed. Is this bulk surveillance actually effective?
Is there credible evidence – as distinct from bland assurances by officials – that it actually
works? Why, despite all the snooping, for example, did our intelligence services not pick
up the Islamic State threat?
It is a good question but it isn't "never discussed", though it's certainly not discussed
enough.
The oversimplified answer is that mass surveillance (vs targeted surveillance) produces so
many false positives that it is a waste of time. Source: amongst other places, BBC R4's excellent
More Or Less series covered this in reasonable detail in May 2013, still available on Listen
Against:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01snyk3
or if you prefer to read rather than listen, the same material ended up on the BBC News website
a week or two later:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22718000
Here's a sample (and a precaution against link-rot):
Imagine that the intelligence services had unlimited resources and could monitor everyone's
phone lines.
Imagine they could detect would-be terrorists within the first three words they utter
on the phone with a 99% degree of accuracy.
There would just be one small problem, according to Howard Wainer, Distinguished Research
Scientist at the National Board of Medical Examiners in the United States.
Suppose there are 3,000 terrorists in the United States, he says. If the software is
99% accurate, you would be able to pick up almost all of them - 99% of them. However if
you were listening to everybody - all 300 million US citizens - 1% of the general population
are going to be picked up by mistake.
"So mixed in with the 3,000 true terrorists that you've identified are going to be the
three million completely innocent people, who are now being sent off to Guantanamo Bay,"
Wainer says.
That is, for every terrorist you would have 999 innocent, but very angry people.
MrLeml
, 19
October 2014 5:43am
The only "National Security" there is; is maintaining and expanding a strong middle class
and shared prosperity.
All this other BS is nothing more than the ruling Oligarchy giving its corrupt security
forces more tools to keep those who do the actual work, under the ruling Oligarchy's boot heel.
normko ->
MrLeml ,
19 October
2014 6:17am
Thank you for cutting through the BS. This is exactly the story. The elite oligarchs are smoke
screening the citizens with their money and using the goons they hire to subvert the constitution
and the so-called democracy. But as long as the citizens have cheap gasoline and hamburgers
with French fries they'll be happy to let the rulers continue to rape the third world and destroy
the planet.
bluecamels
, 19
October 2014 8:52am
'And the standard official line on privacy at the moment – that "people obviously don't care
much about it, otherwise they wouldn't be on Facebook" – won't wash, because people give their
consent to Facebook'Whose official line is this?
Most people have no idea what most of the major internet players do with their data, let
alone having consented to it. Someone might post a comment on Facebook, but that is some way
short of the data that being collected and shared without our consent as we browse the internet.
We do not consent to the vast majority of data that is collected about us, we instead agree
to extremely long and deliberately complicated privacy policies.
And corporations lose far more data than Governments - they are just better at keeping quiet
about it.
memeroots
, 19
October 2014 8:59am
Hmm - considering the data that companies hold and the limited security around it... I'd be
very supprised if the nsa didn't have free access.They probably only ask 'broad' questions
to hide the fact they already know the data specifically and simply need to get a dump that
is able to be presented in a court of law.
Noleader
, 19 October
2014 9:19am
it would be unthinkable not to allow access to communications for law enforcement and
national security purposes.
It would be ideal to not allow them access to our communications. Police work was done long
before the police had the ability to listen in on conversations. Add to that anyone with half
a brain knows that if you are going to do dirt the last thing you do is talk around any technology.
To argue that the state needs access to our communications to protect us ignores that they
would need to suspect a person of a crime long before they accessed those communications (get
a warrant). At which point they already suspect something is up so they stand just as good a
chance of under minding the criminal activity with or without access to the communications (You
know placing bugs, following suspects, check banking history, etc.. after getting a court order
to do so).
nearthethames
, 19
October 2014 9:30am
James Comey, the new director of the FBI, argued recently that Apple and Google adding encryption
and thus frustrating access by the FBI, NSA, CIA etc, was in his view like car manufacturers
lock all car trunks permanently and safe makers making all safes unable to be opened, to which
he added "and that will prevent law enforcement from catching the bad guys."The big difference,
James, is that law enforcement are not physically going into every trunk and every safe and
every bedroom (albeit they'd no doubt like to) so if you want to have more public trust that
your surveillance is measured and genuinely approved by an independent judge (and not a FISA
"court" judge) then go after only the communications of those for whom your officers can assert
probably cause. The world now accepts and believes, despite protestations, that mass surveillance
does indeed occur, and so of course ordinary people are going to prefer technology that has
encryption built in. Being caught not only carrying out mass surveillance but lying about it
too initially, has only hastened the public's appetite for encryption.
johhnybgood
, 19 October
2014 9:42am
There is only one reason for this total surveillance -fear. The PTB know full well what is coming
because the plans have been in the pipeline for decades. It has nothing whatever to do with
"keeping us safe" -it is more a case of keeping themselves safe. The transfer of wealth to the
super rich elite is reaching its end; there is little left to steal. They know there will be
a backlash when the crash comes, and they have put in place means to deal with the inevitable
public revolt.
What they have failed to anticipate though, is the global awakening in consciousness which is
occurring at a rapid rate, and which cannot be stopped.
There is an unseen battle for hearts and minds going on, and there will only be one winner.
The light will prevail.
hugsandpuppies
, 19 October
2014 11:10am
There is such a thing as a comepetent spy?
I'd direct you to the Adam Curtis blog where he has a fascinating history of UK espionage
over the last century. You would not be surprised to discover that it involves cranks, fools
and utter incompetence with pernicous side effects tom match.
Berg206 ,
19 October
2014 1:01pm
My guess is that the purpose is not to survey but to frustrate. Making it clear that every computer
can be hacked, that all phone calls, texts, emails and data transfers can be intercepted, and
that every cell phone can be tracked, forces hardcore criminals and terrorists into working
without them. They have to physically associate with each other: they can be followed, watched,
bugged, tricked, turned. Isn't that how MI5 managed to get half the membership of the IRA Army
Council working for them?
Guezdan ,
19 October
2014 1:29pm
In my own Federal law enforcement agency, which had its origins in 1789, we are still struggling
to digest the consequent jurisdictional purview overlaps created by the infamous and ironically
named Patriot Act. Bottom line: as with everything else in American history, whenever a principle
encounters the bottom line and profiteering, that principle is doomed. There are such big bucks
to be made in selling scare tactic based "solutions", a lesson learned at Hitler's knee, that
some of us have become positively addicted to the cash flow, as if it were green heroin. Why,
in my very organisation, there are private attorneys who have sold their law practices and bought
their way into a political plum job in exchange for the President to grandfather them in as
Assistant Commissioner, this despite any significant law enforcement experience. And then these
very people have had videos made by the propaganda ministry for internal and external consumption
to big them up and obfuscate their employment's true attribution...
GoredToDeath
, 19 October
2014 2:00pm
The state wants to spy on us – but is it up to the job?
The answer is no, it isn't... but that job will be outsourced to private agencies
and None Governmental organizations.
The whole reason behind ALL PARTIES in Government, (Liberal, Labor & Greens)
pushing this Orwellian agenda through, is because all parties have been mandated by lobbyists
(Not the electorate, not the people, not us but 'corporation lobbyists') to prop-up and
reinforce the new corporate state authority laws, as laid out by the TPP (or Trans Pacific
Partnership).
The Corporations [this includes banks] rule the world now, and they do not want competition
in any way shape or form, this isn't Capitalism anymore, this is Monopoly. Insider
trading, insider dealing and insider knowledge of everyone and everything, nothing is to be
left to chance in this New World Order.
The Spying will be privatized and all the dirty little secrets will be sold from one
dealer to the next and when they have enough dirt on you, even your imprisonment will be commodified
and out sourced.
Go back to sleep Australia – someone out there will be up to the job.
cpdukes ,
19 October
2014 2:49pm
There is no "balance between national security and our right to privacy" issue. The US Stasi
have yet to demonstrate that any of this domestic spying has in any way contributed anyone's
safety, indeed, quite the opposite. Why media continue to buy into this phoney trope is beyond
me.
SleepyPixie
, 19 October
2014 8:02pm
I've wondered, too, what on earth they do with the mountain of information they collect;
they don't seem effective at distilling any of it into anything meaningful or helpful, at least
when it matters most. It's like wanting to know something specific about nudibranch DNA and
reading everything about world history in the vague hope of finding something relevant.
Sofia Diaz
, 20 October
2014 12:43am
Hey guys check this tutorial to record Skype Video Callshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGUgfQYZnBY
I think Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the
Elite explains probably better incompatibility of
NSA (which was created under Truman
in 1952) and democracy... The elite wants to remain in control... According to the leaked documents,
the NSA intercepts the communications of over a billion people worldwide and tracks the movement of
hundreds of millions of people using cellphones. But as
Church Committee established the efforts
by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US citizens were in overdrive
from the very beginning of their existence. The Church Committee learned that from early 1950s, the
CIA and Federal Bureau of Investigation
intercepted, opened and photographed more than 215,000 pieces of mail by the time the program called
"HTLINGUAL" was shut down in 1973. This program
existed within a larger "mail covers" program
which corresponds more modern metadata collection efforts one to one. A "mail cover program" is when
the government records without a warrant or notification all information on the outside of an envelope
or package, including the name of the sender and the recipient. Senator Church even said the US intelligence
agencies were 'rogue elephants.'
Are Covert Ops Compatible With Democracy?
It's part of the public record that the NSA has engaged in an industry-wide campaign to
weaken cryptographic protocols and
insert back
doors into hi-tech products sold by U.S. companies. We also know that NSA officials have privately
congratulated each other in successfully undermining privacy and security across the Internet.
Hence it's only logical to assume that the NSA's numerous subversion programs extend into
foreign "commercial entities". Thanks to
documents recently disclosed
by the Intercept we have unambiguous confirmation.
Hi-tech subversion underscores the fact that the
whole tired debate
regarding cryptographic keys held in escrow …
(Full article …)
The United Nations' top official for counter-terrorism and human rights (known as the "Special
Rapporteur") issued
a formal report to the U.N. General Assembly today that condemns mass electronic surveillance
as a clear violation of core privacy rights guaranteed by multiple treaties and conventions. "The
hard truth is that the use of mass surveillance technology effectively does away with the right
to privacy of communications on the Internet altogether," the report concluded.
Central to the Rapporteur's findings is the distinction between "targeted surveillance" - which
"depend[s] upon the existence of prior suspicion of the targeted individual or organization" - and
"mass surveillance," whereby "states with high levels of Internet penetration can [] gain access
to the telephone and e-mail content of an effectively unlimited number of users and maintain an
overview of Internet activity associated with particular websites." In a system of "mass surveillance,"
the report explained, "all of this is possible without any prior suspicion related to a specific
individual or organization. The communications of literally every Internet user are potentially
open for inspection by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the States concerned."
Mass surveillance thus "amounts to a systematic interference with the right to respect for the
privacy of communications," it declared. As a result, "it is incompatible with existing concepts
of privacy for States to collect all communications or metadata all the time indiscriminately."
In concluding that mass surveillance impinges core privacy rights, the report was primarily focused
on the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty enacted by the General Assembly in 1966, to
which all of the members of the "Five Eyes" alliance are signatories. The U.S.
ratified the treaty
in 1992, albeit with various reservations that allowed for the continuation of the death penalty
and which rendered its domestic law supreme. With the exception of the U.S.'s Persian Gulf allies
(Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar), virtually every major country has
signed the treaty.
Article 17 of the Covenant guarantees the right of privacy, the defining protection of which,
the report explained, is "that individuals have the right to share information and ideas with one
another without interference by the State, secure in the knowledge that their communication will
reach and be read by the intended recipients alone."
The report's key conclusion is that this core right is impinged by mass surveillance programs:
"Bulk access technology is indiscriminately corrosive of online privacy and impinges on the very
essence of the right guaranteed by article 17. In the absence of a formal derogation from States'
obligations under the Covenant, these programs pose a direct and ongoing challenge to an established
norm of international law."
The report recognized that protecting citizens from terrorism attacks is a vital duty of every
state, and that the right of privacy is not absolute, as it can be compromised when doing so is
"necessary" to serve "compelling" purposes. It noted: "There may be a compelling counter-terrorism
justification for the radical re-evaluation of Internet privacy rights that these practices necessitate.
"
But the report was adamant that no such justifications have ever been demonstrated by any member
state using mass surveillance: "The States engaging in mass surveillance have so far failed to provide
a detailed and evidence-based public justification for its necessity, and almost no States have
enacted explicit domestic legislation to authorize its use."
Instead, explained the Rapporteur, states have relied on vague claims whose validity cannot be
assessed because of the secrecy behind which these programs are hidden: "The arguments in favor
of a complete abrogation of the right to privacy on the Internet have not been made publicly by
the States concerned or subjected to informed scrutiny and debate."
About the ongoing secrecy surrounding the programs, the report explained that "states deploying
this technology retain a monopoly of information about its impact," which is "a form of conceptual
censorship … that precludes informed debate." A June
report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights similarly noted "the disturbing lack of governmental
transparency associated with surveillance policies, laws and practices, which hinders any effort
to assess their coherence with international human rights law and to ensure accountability."
The rejection of the "terrorism" justification for mass surveillance as devoid of evidence echoes
virtually every other formal investigation into these programs. A federal judge last December
found that the U.S. Government was unable to "cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA's
bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack." Later that month, President
Obama's own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies
concluded that mass surveillance "was not essential to preventing attacks" and information used
to detect plots "could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court]
orders."
Three Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee
wrote in The New York Times that "the usefulness of the bulk collection program has
been greatly exaggerated" and "we have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value
in protecting national security." A study by the centrist New America Foundation
found that mass metadata collection "has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism"
and, where plots were disrupted, "traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided
the tip or evidence to initiate the case." It labeled the NSA's claims to the contrary as "overblown
and even misleading."
While worthless in counter-terrorism policies, the UN report warned that allowing mass surveillance
to persist with no transparency creates "an ever present danger of 'purpose creep,' by which measures
justified on counter-terrorism grounds are made available for use by public authorities for much
less weighty public interest purposes." Citing the UK as one example, the report warned that, already,
"a wide range of public bodies have access to communications data, for a wide variety of purposes,
often without judicial authorization or meaningful independent oversight."
The report was most scathing in its rejection of a key argument
often made by American defenders of the NSA: that mass surveillance is justified because Americans
are given special protections (the requirement of a FISA court order for targeted surveillance)
which non-Americans (95% of the world) do not enjoy. Not only does this scheme fail to render mass
surveillance legal, but it itself constitutes a separate violation of international treaties (emphasis
added):
The Special Rapporteur concurs with the High Commissioner for Human Rights that where States
penetrate infrastructure located outside their territorial jurisdiction, they remain bound by
their obligations under the Covenant. Moreover, article 26 of the Covenant prohibits discrimination
on grounds of, inter alia, nationality and citizenship. The Special Rapporteur thus considers
that States are legally obliged to afford the same privacy protection for nationals
and non-nationals and for those within and outside their jurisdiction. Asymmetrical privacy
protection regimes are a clear violation of the requirements of the Covenant.
That principle - that the right of internet privacy belongs to all individuals, not just Americans
- was invoked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden when he explained in
a June, 2013 interview at The Guardian why he disclosed documents showing global surveillance
rather than just the surveillance of Americans: "More fundamentally, the 'US Persons' protection
in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance
does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%."
The U.N. Rapporteur was clear that these systematic privacy violations are the result of a union
between governments and tech corporations: "States increasingly rely on the private sector to facilitate
digital surveillance. This is not confined to the enactment of mandatory data retention legislation.
Corporates [sic] have also been directly complicit in operationalizing bulk access technology
through the design of communications infrastructure that facilitates mass surveillance. "
The latest finding adds to the growing number of international formal rulings that the mass surveillance
programs of the U.S. and its partners are illegal. In January, the European parliament's civil liberties
committee
condemned such programs in "the strongest possible terms." In April, the European Court of Justice
ruled that European
legislation on data retention contravened EU privacy rights. A top secret memo from the GCHQ,
published last year by The Guardian, explicitly stated that one key reason for concealing
these programs was fear of a "damaging public debate" and specifically "legal challenges against
the current regime."
The report ended with a call for far greater transparency along with new protections for privacy
in the digital age. Continuation of the status quo, it warned, imposes "a risk that systematic interference
with the security of digital communications will continue to proliferate without any serious consideration
being given to the implications of the wholesale abandonment of the right to online privacy." The
urgency of these reforms is underscored, explained the Rapporteur, by a conclusion of the United
States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that "permitting the government to routinely
collect the calling records of the entire nation fundamentally shifts the balance of power between
the state and its citizens."
Citizenfour must have been a maddening documentary to film. Its subject is pervasive global surveillance,
an enveloping digital act that spreads without visibility, so its scenes unfold in courtrooms, hearing
chambers and hotels. Yet the virtuosity of Laura Poitras, its director and architect, makes its
114 minutes crackle with the nervous energy of revelation.
... ... ...
Accessibly explaining how surveillance works, and why it matters, only gets more challenging
the deeper you dig into the NSA trove. At the Guardian, it consumed exhausting months' worth of
background reporting, verification and endless revisions. Poitras, through Snowden, employs minimal
jargon about "selectors" (email accounts, IP addresses, phone numbers, etc). One deft way she demonstrates
the breadth of NSA's reach is to film the security researcher and journalist Jacob Applebaum teaching
an Occupy Wall Street crowd about life patterns displayed through their their credit cards, transit
passes and phone records – the web of metadata that shows our associations and choices which, out
of context, can make us look suspicious. Anyone engaging in modern communications has unsuspectingly
provided the NSA with valuable information.
Since June 2013, Snowden has been a cipher to the world, often yielding paranoid reactions (Russian
spy! Chinese dupe!) from people understandably curious about his motives. It may be too late to
change people's minds about Snowden, at least so soon after his leaks. But the Snowden who Poitras
shows – hair tousled, resisting his attempts at styling it – is determined, sincere and human.
While often portrayed as arrogant, especially by self-interested surveillance bureaucrats, Snowden
tells Poitras, Greenwald and MacAskill that he wants journalists and not himself to decide what
ought to be public. He is possessed with an uncanny calm as he is about to become forever targeted.
Yet Snowden's eyes redden and his shoulders stoop when he grasps the burden he is placing on his
family and girlfriend – with whom he is now reunited in Russia, a place in which he never intended
to live.
Trailer for Citizenfour.
... ... ...
Given the passions that the NSA disclosures have generated, it's remarkable how tempered Citizenfour
comes across. Reflecting a style Poitras seems to share with Snowden, it's a quiet movie, its soundtrack
a sinister digital throb, packed tight with questions about how we live freely in an unseen dragnet.
One of its only boisterous moments comes when Snowden and Greenwald discuss the spirit animating
both the reporting and Snowden's decision to reveal himself. Greenwald describes it as "the fearlessness
and the fuck-you".
That fearlessness attracted Snowden to Poitras, and it shows through her camera.
Citizenfour opens in US cinemas on 24 October.
duke_widin -> FingerOfDoom, 11 October 2014 5:26pm
US politician and big corporation become worldwide laughing stock, now they have to admit
how they pressed and blackmailed corrupt politicians in Britain and EU to have TTIP trade talks...
Thank you Mr Snowden, you are becoming a Hero ....
wereonaroadtonowhere -> FingerOfDoom, 11 October 2014 6:15pm
I fail to see what benefit this has for me as a western citizen other than to weaken the
west. Intelligence agencies and police wont stop snooping on us. They always have, either with
digital technology and data, or in the real world, such as undercover police. It's their reasons
that need to be questioned not their methods. If my government places undercover police in to
environmental political movements then that is wrong and I want to know about it whether it
is done digitally or in real life. Snowden just seems set on giving away state secrets not disclosing
misuse of power. I would happily give agreement for my government to carry out snooping on me
for specific pre-agreed reasons. Its the reasons we need to control not the snooping. I personally
think he has crossed a line between truth sayer and traitor.
We live in a world where other political systems reasons and intentions are more dangerous
than our own, such as Russia and China. They will use this information to weaken the west. Then
when they have gained control, there will be more surveillance and oppression than you could
possibly imagine.
jollygreen1970
->
wereonaroadtonowhere,
13 October
2014 1:41am
What twaddle. Western spying agencies are no better than Russian or Chinese, you've just bought
the propaganda! Information is power, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What is disturbing more than the "snooping" you refer to is that the heads of the NSA, CIA
etc stood up and under oath lied to their political masters about their activities (Snowden
later exposed these lies), those agencies are now out of control they are not doing the bidding
of their masters and that is the biggest threat to democracy!
Radleyman
->
duke_widin,
13 October
2014 1:19pm
Thanks for your comments. I don't know why it is but in the UK the BBC has such a stranglehold
on the news that if they don't report it nobody else bothers.The result is we are all ignorant
and have just got ourselves steamed up about TTIP and ISDS but have not noticed CETA. So when
we see CETA on posters in German and other protests most of us are bemused.
At risk of overload I will append some of the references I have found by looking outside
the aegis of our UK right wing media. There's a lot going on, especially the Foreign Office
Meeting today demanded and reported in the BBC reference, and the LSE meeting of people such
as Goldman Sachs representatives, pushing the line that TTIP is good. That is open to the public
and is at LSE at 6:30 pm.
here are the references
TTIP Comments from
John Healey (Labour) who is chair of the all party committee on EU-US Trade and Investment
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ignore-the-critics--ttip-is-something-the-left-should-fight-for-9786820.html
In this article Healey advances the case for TTIP and some of his arguments may be good,
some deserve an answer. There is a very good discussion below the line. It may be worth
contributing to it because (I imagine) Healey might read it.
BBC (updated at 1834 on 11/11 but I can't see the update!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29572475
A talk forwarded by Karel de Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade (until recently)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-681_en.htm?locale=en This is an EU Commissioner's
take on why TTIP is a good thing. It contains good points, points it would be hard to disagree
with, but, perhaps just because it was the introduction to a debate. It was presented persuasively
but patronisingly and it would be difficult to argue with it without references to the many
ad hoc remarks.
Russia Today Http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29572475
Is it me or does this article gloat somewhat? Since I wrote this I have seen an interesting
critique of this and comparison with the BBC. I will append it to this posting.
On ITV.com there is a brief, balanced report but it lacks detail
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-11/what-is-the-controversial-us-eu-trade-deal/
On Al Jazeera there was a discussion with a range of people on the subject of TTIP, for
and against. I can't extract much detail but it looks as if this discussion/debate might
have been more informative than anything the BBC has published.
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409302258-0024187
AND a public discussion at LSE by the usual culprits, promoting TTIP.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2014/10/20141013t1830vSZT.aspx
This will be on Monday 13th (TODAY) at 6.30 pm and is open to the public.
LATEST
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1110_en.htm
describes progress on the legal front in Brussels. On the surface it reads as though
the Investor State dispute settlement mechanism will be well handled. I am not a lawyer
and don't intend to read all this, but decisions are being made within days.
And manna from heaven from France24. Read the last line about the new commissioner scrapping
ISDS.
http://www.france24.com/en/20141009-eu-releases-us-trade-pact-details-transparency-bid/
Malmström and Patterson
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ttip-eu-trade-commissioner-elect-malmstrm-faces-grilling-isds-storm-continues-brew-1467633
DukeofStratosphere 11 October 2014 3:18pm
They were spying before it was legal and now they are trying to pull out of the EU Human Rights
to get away with it, rushing through new legislation entitled 'Bill of Rights" without our consent
or approval. This is quiet frightening catastrophic abuse of civil liberties, freedoms and values
is outrageous, but what else would you expect under the rule of cronyism.
SeanThorp -> DukeofStratosphere 11 October 2014 3:40pm
Firstly the NSA have fuck all to do with Tony Blairs 1998 'Human Rights Act', secondly the Government
which introduced that Act were also chief architects of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data generated or processed in connection
with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications
networks, and were also the Government responsible for giving the go-ahead to GCHQ to get in
on what the NSA were up to.
1timeonly, 11 October 2014 3:40pm
'While often portrayed as arrogant, especially by self-interested surveillance bureaucrats,
...'
The line above demonstrates why the guardian lost any veneer of objective journalism in the
course of this story. Any criticism of its actions or the individuals central to this story
are dismissed with similar arrogance (e.g., 'you must be a stooge if you criticise us'). It
is painfully clear that the main objective has always been money; greenwald is swimming in it,
having been paid $250m by omidyar for the cache of stolen information and now poitras will be
hoping to cash in, on top of monies already paid by the guardian and a handful of other publications.
SpecialPG, 11 October 2014 3:59pm
The strange thing about fearing terror violence, is that it is largely caused by that fear.
Genuinely free and liberal societies should prize liberty and freedom over and above anything
else, but in reality much of this is suppressed by fear. Terrorism in Ireland was not defeated
by smashing it - this was tried and failed - it was minimised by winning the moral high ground
and leaving the terrorists little room in which to manoeuvre. When will the idiots who run our
countries understand this? And when will the morons who condone this behaviour and keep returning
them to power finally rise up above their media indoctrination and understand the truth?
outfitter SpecialPG, 11 October 2014 4:19pm
Fear totally drives our intelligence services (they are hyper paranoid), the government that
funds and is supposed to control them and the public that acquiesces in the loss of their own
freedom? I can understand some people willingly giving up their privacy to stop terrorism, but
how else could you explain spending such huge sums for so few results - possibly no results?
Miriam Bergholz, 11 October 2014 5:30pm
Snowden disclosure and the work of the Guardian and journalists involved had already marked
a political era in this century. It is not only the problem of the internet use and how privacy
is considered. But, democracy as a concept is discussed again, as well the role of journalism,
which has triggered further questions in other planes of the political discourse, and without
doubt are debated a higher level of diplomacy and alliances. For not to talk about the secrecy
of enterprises that comprised every single human being having a computer in this planet.
What will come out of this processes, it is still a question, but nobody can deny their enormous
importance. In my opinion, the disclosure and the aftermath, is in simple words a triumph for
democracy. Therefore I can only say thank you.
UdomThongpai, 11 October 2014 5:43pm
Those who imagine Russia learning secrets from Snowden miss the boat entirely. Russia is
a world leader in surveillance technology. There's nothing the americans do that the Russians
don't do as well, if not better.
Pretty much all these systems are for sale at surveillance trade fairs which attract buyers
from all over the world. There was never a danger of the Russians learning american secrets.
It's always been the danger of american citizens learning they're being spied on by their own
government.
ID3159280 -> UdomThongpai, 11 October 2014 6:03pm
Yeah but he revealed operations that I don't think served any good purpose by being exposed.
It seems that in a lot of cases, the baby went out with the bath water. Much of it we needed
to know. A lot of it, we didn't and I sure it helped our adversaries a great deal to know about
some of these techniques.
ID3159280, 11 October 2014 5:59pm
If American democracy ever re-emerges, Snowden will get a statue. There are some things he
did that I will never understand and really oppose, mainly in sources and methods.
After all, spy agencies are supposed to actually spy, so setting up WiFi hotspots to spy
on other government officials is a pretty neat trick and should have been kept secret. But what's
done is done and can't be replayed. Despite the enormous damage, I think the country would have
been much further along the path to police state without him.
mcduffy, 12 October 2014 5:44am
Eben Moglen is a professor of law and legal history at Columbia University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fA5D85AazI
Prof. Eben Moglen's second lecture on the implications of Edward Snowden's revelations. What
he has given us and what we need to do now if we want to life in a free society in the future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCUJn-5By14
hdc -> hadeze, 12 October 2014 3:39pm
The longer Snowden remains in Russia, the less relevant he becomes. Here's hoping
Putin's permanent houseboy enjoys a few more seasons in his Moscow lair.
au contraire ... Snowden's impact grows with every new day. His courage stands out first.
Secondly, he warned all of us of what is here now and what is yet to come. Beginning with gov/t
agencies like the NSA, CIA, FBI we have become probed in our private lives... and idiot, corrupt
politician like Obama babble on it's all for our own good.
Thanksgiving makes one understand that Obama, his underlings in the EU & elsewhere have collectively
not even the integrity of a gnat towards fellow gnats. What once was ours, is now rented to
us ... if we do exactly as the gov/t exacts.
Snowden painted the picture for us. He was awake, the rest of us asleep.
Opnuris, 13 October 2014 6:05pm
Edward Snowden is without a doubt one of the hero's of our times. He did what he set out
to do and that is stimulate critical thinking and discussion about whether the American people
agree that our own government should have the unlimited ability to spy on us without our consent.
Most of you are to young to truly understand who are government really is and what they are
willing to do to keep power from the people. I worry about what kind of world my grandchildren
will be growing up in. It saddens me. Opnuris
Edward Snowden's Privacy Tips: "Get Rid Of Dropbox," Avoid Facebook And Google | TechCrunch
Snowden conducted a remote interview today
as part of the New Yorker Festival, where he was asked a couple of variants on the question
of what we can do to protect our privacy.
His first answer called for a reform of government policies. Some people take the position that
they "don't have anything to hide," but he argued that when you say that, "You're inverting the
model of responsibility for how rights work":
When you say, 'I have nothing to hide,' you're saying, 'I don't care about this right.' You're
saying, 'I don't have this right, because I've got to the point where I have to justify it.'
The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights.
He added that on an individual level, people should seek out encrypted tools and stop using services
that are "hostile to privacy." For one thing, he said you should "get rid of Dropbox," because it
doesn't support encryption, and you should consider alternatives like
Snowden made similar comments over the summer, with Dropbox responding that protecting users'
information is "a top priority.")
[Update: In
a June blog post
related to Snowden, Dropbox actually says, "All files sent and retrieved from Dropbox are encrypted
while traveling between you and our servers," as well as when they're "at rest on our servers,"
and it points to other security measures that the company is taking. The difference between Dropbox
and SpiderOak,
as explained elsewhere, is that SpiderOak encrypts the data while it's on your computer, as
opposed to only encrypting it "in transit" and on the company's servers.]
[And here's a more complete Snowden quote, from around 1:04:55 in the video: "We're talking about
encryption. We're talking about dropping programs that are hostile to privacy. For example, Dropbox?
Get rid of Dropbox, it doesn't support encryption, it doesn't protect your private files. And use
competitors like SpiderOak, that do the same exact service but they protect the content of what
you're sharing."]
He also suggested that while Facebook and Google have improved their security, they remain "dangerous
services" that people should avoid. (Somewhat amusingly, anyone watching the interview via Google
Hangout or YouTube saw a Google logo above Snowden's face as he said this.) His final piece of advice
on this front: Don't send unencrypted text messages, but instead use services like
RedPhone and
Silent Circle.
Earlier in the interview, Snowden dismissed claims that
increased encryption on iOS will hurt crime-fighting efforts. Even with that encryption, he
said law enforcement officials can still ask for warrants that will give them complete access to
a suspect's phone, which will include the key to the encrypted data. Plus, companies like Apple,
AT&T, and Verizon can be subpoenaed for their data.
Beyond the privacy discussion, Snowden talked about how and why he decided to leak documents
bringing the government's electronic surveillance programs to light. He repeatedly claimed that
he wasn't pursuing a specific policy outcome, but just trying to have an open conversation about
these issues:
We can have secret programs. You know, the American people don't have to know the name of
every individual that's under investigation. We don't need to know the technical details of
absolutely every program in the intelligence community. But we do have to know the bare and
broad outlines of the powers our government is claiming … and how they affect us and how they
affect our relationships overseas. Because if we don't, we are no longer citizens, we no longer
have leaders. We're subjects, and we have rulers.
As for why Snowden hasn't come back to the United States to stand trial, he said that when he
looked at how the U.S. government treated whistleblowers like
Thomas Drake and
Chelsea Manning, he became
convinced that he wouldn't be able to present his case to a jury in an open trial.
"I've told the government again and again in negotiations, you know, that if they're prepared
to offer an open trial, a fair trial in the same way that
Dan Ellsberg got, and
I'm allowed to make my case to the jury, I would love to do so," he said. "But to this point they've
declined."
Snowden acknowledged that there's some irony in his taking shelter in China and Russia, countries
that don't exactly have spotless human rights or privacy records themselves. He said Russia was
supposed to be a transit point on his way to Latin America - but his passport was canceled while
he was at the Moscow airport.
The New Yorker's Jane Mayer ended the interview on a light note, suggesting that Snowden was
now free to enjoy some vodka. He replied, "I actually don't drink alcohol. Little-known fact: I've
never been drunk."
Here's a full video of the interview. The discussion of privacy and consumer Internet services
(which, again, consisted of two questions in a row) begins at around 58:30.
The United Nations' top official for counter-terrorism and human rights (known as the "Special
Rapporteur") issued
a formal report to the U.N. General Assembly today that condemns mass electronic surveillance
as a clear violation of core privacy rights guaranteed by multiple treaties and conventions. "The
hard truth is that the use of mass surveillance technology effectively does away with the right
to privacy of communications on the Internet altogether," the report concluded.
Central to the Rapporteur's findings is the distinction between "targeted surveillance" - which
"depend[s] upon the existence of prior suspicion of the targeted individual or organization" - and
"mass surveillance," whereby "states with high levels of Internet penetration can [] gain access
to the telephone and e-mail content of an effectively unlimited number of users and maintain an
overview of Internet activity associated with particular websites." In a system of "mass surveillance,"
the report explained, "all of this is possible without any prior suspicion related to a specific
individual or organization. The communications of literally every Internet user are potentially
open for inspection by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the States concerned."
Mass surveillance thus "amounts to a systematic interference with the right to respect for the
privacy of communications," it declared. As a result, "it is incompatible with existing concepts
of privacy for States to collect all communications or metadata all the time indiscriminately."
In concluding that mass surveillance impinges core privacy rights, the report was primarily focused
on the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty enacted by the General Assembly in 1966, to
which all of the members of the "Five Eyes" alliance are signatories. The U.S.
ratified the treaty
in 1992, albeit with various reservations that allowed for the continuation of the death penalty
and which rendered its domestic law supreme. With the exception of the U.S.'s Persian Gulf allies
(Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar), virtually every major country has
signed the treaty.
Article 17 of the Covenant guarantees the right of privacy, the defining protection of which,
the report explained, is "that individuals have the right to share information and ideas with one
another without interference by the State, secure in the knowledge that their communication will
reach and be read by the intended recipients alone."
The report's key conclusion is that this core right is impinged by mass surveillance programs:
"Bulk access technology is indiscriminately corrosive of online privacy and impinges on the very
essence of the right guaranteed by article 17. In the absence of a formal derogation from States'
obligations under the Covenant, these programs pose a direct and ongoing challenge to an established
norm of international law."
The report recognized that protecting citizens from terrorism attacks is a vital duty of every
state, and that the right of privacy is not absolute, as it can be compromised when doing so is
"necessary" to serve "compelling" purposes. It noted: "There may be a compelling counter-terrorism
justification for the radical re-evaluation of Internet privacy rights that these practices necessitate.
"
But the report was adamant that no such justifications have ever been demonstrated by any member
state using mass surveillance: "The States engaging in mass surveillance have so far failed to provide
a detailed and evidence-based public justification for its necessity, and almost no States have
enacted explicit domestic legislation to authorize its use."
Instead, explained the Rapporteur, states have relied on vague claims whose validity cannot be
assessed because of the secrecy behind which these programs are hidden: "The arguments in favor
of a complete abrogation of the right to privacy on the Internet have not been made publicly by
the States concerned or subjected to informed scrutiny and debate."
About the ongoing secrecy surrounding the programs, the report explained that "states deploying
this technology retain a monopoly of information about its impact," which is "a form of conceptual
censorship … that precludes informed debate." A June
report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights similarly noted "the disturbing lack of governmental
transparency associated with surveillance policies, laws and practices, which hinders any effort
to assess their coherence with international human rights law and to ensure accountability."
The rejection of the "terrorism" justification for mass surveillance as devoid of evidence echoes
virtually every other formal investigation into these programs. A federal judge last December
found that the U.S. Government was unable to "cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA's
bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack." Later that month, President
Obama's own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies
concluded that mass surveillance "was not essential to preventing attacks" and information used
to detect plots "could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court]
orders."
Three Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee
wrote in The New York Times that "the usefulness of the bulk collection program has
been greatly exaggerated" and "we have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value
in protecting national security." A study by the centrist New America Foundation
found that mass metadata collection "has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism"
and, where plots were disrupted, "traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided
the tip or evidence to initiate the case." It labeled the NSA's claims to the contrary as "overblown
and even misleading."
While worthless in counter-terrorism policies, the UN report warned that allowing mass surveillance
to persist with no transparency creates "an ever present danger of 'purpose creep,' by which measures
justified on counter-terrorism grounds are made available for use by public authorities for much
less weighty public interest purposes." Citing the UK as one example, the report warned that, already,
"a wide range of public bodies have access to communications data, for a wide variety of purposes,
often without judicial authorization or meaningful independent oversight."
The report was most scathing in its rejection of a key argument
often made by American defenders of the NSA: that mass surveillance is justified because Americans
are given special protections (the requirement of a FISA court order for targeted surveillance)
which non-Americans (95% of the world) do not enjoy. Not only does this scheme fail to render mass
surveillance legal, but it itself constitutes a separate violation of international treaties (emphasis
added):
The Special Rapporteur concurs with the High Commissioner for Human Rights that where States
penetrate infrastructure located outside their territorial jurisdiction, they remain bound by
their obligations under the Covenant. Moreover, article 26 of the Covenant prohibits discrimination
on grounds of, inter alia, nationality and citizenship. The Special Rapporteur thus considers
that States are legally obliged to afford the same privacy protection for nationals
and non-nationals and for those within and outside their jurisdiction. Asymmetrical privacy
protection regimes are a clear violation of the requirements of the Covenant.
That principle - that the right of internet privacy belongs to all individuals, not just Americans
- was invoked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden when he explained in
a June, 2013 interview at The Guardian why he disclosed documents showing global surveillance
rather than just the surveillance of Americans: "More fundamentally, the 'US Persons' protection
in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance
does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%."
The U.N. Rapporteur was clear that these systematic privacy violations are the result of a union
between governments and tech corporations: "States increasingly rely on the private sector to facilitate
digital surveillance. This is not confined to the enactment of mandatory data retention legislation.
Corporates [sic] have also been directly complicit in operationalizing bulk access technology
through the design of communications infrastructure that facilitates mass surveillance. "
The latest finding adds to the growing number of international formal rulings that the mass surveillance
programs of the U.S. and its partners are illegal. In January, the European parliament's civil liberties
committee
condemned such programs in "the strongest possible terms." In April, the European Court of Justice
ruled that European
legislation on data retention contravened EU privacy rights. A top secret memo from the GCHQ,
published last year by The Guardian, explicitly stated that one key reason for concealing
these programs was fear of a "damaging public debate" and specifically "legal challenges against
the current regime."
The report ended with a call for far greater transparency along with new protections for privacy
in the digital age. Continuation of the status quo, it warned, imposes "a risk that systematic interference
with the security of digital communications will continue to proliferate without any serious consideration
being given to the implications of the wholesale abandonment of the right to online privacy." The
urgency of these reforms is underscored, explained the Rapporteur, by a conclusion of the United
States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that "permitting the government to routinely
collect the calling records of the entire nation fundamentally shifts the balance of power between
the state and its citizens."
The rights group Privacy International asked the British government this morning to investigate
a surveillance company for enabling spying on Bahraini activists in the U.K.
The company in question, Gamma Group, is a U.K.-based firm that
provides surveillance software and other
"lawful intercept" technology to governments around the world. Among their products was FinFisher
software, which lets spies remotely monitor a computer they've infected - accessing files, web traffic,
Skype calls and more. Privacy International asked the U.K.'s National Crime Agency to investigate
the company.
"Companies like Gamma have been enabling repressive states' unlawful conduct, but then seeking
to suggest that they bear no responsibility for the products that they supply," said Adriana Edmeades,
Privacy International's legal officer.
As
The Intercept reported in August, leaked documents from FinFisher showed correspondence
between FinFisher customer service centers and accounts in Bahrain. The human rights group
Bahrain Watch identified dozens of computers infected from Bahrain during a period that spanned
the country's Arab spring protests and the government's
brutal crackdown on them. Several of the compromised computers belonged to prominent human rights
lawyers and opposition leaders.
Three of the activists whose computers were hacked were living in the U.K., having been granted
political asylum. Two of them, Mohammed Moosa Abd-Ali Ali and Jaafar Al Hasabi, were formerly jailed
and tortured in Bahrain. Saeed Al-Shehabi, a journalist and commentator, was sentenced in absentia
in 2011 to life in prison.
"We often had the feeling that they were spying on us but we had no physical evidence of intrusion,"
Shehabi
told The Guardian. Although researchers
had
previously identified FinFisher software on Bahraini activists' computers, the details in the
newly leaked documents provided evidence that the company was engaging with Bahraini accounts, belying
FinFisher's earlier claims that the software could have been stolen demos.
Privacy International argues that Gamma is complicit in the Bahraini government's violation of
British surveillance laws. Lodging a formal complaint with the National Crime Agency doesn't automatically
trigger an investigation, but Privacy International could eventually take it to court if the government
doesn't do anything, said Edmeades. The group is still waiting to hear from the office about
another complaint they filed earlier this year, on behalf of an Ethiopian political refugee
whose computer was infected by FinFisher.
FinFisher spun off from Gamma last year, and is now independent, and based in Germany. But at
the time of the Bahraini surveillance shown in the leaked documents, FinFisher was a Gamma subsidiary.
In August, Bahrain's media attaché in Washington said that "select individuals continue to unjustifiably
associate their personal malware to the Government and all evidence collated by the accusers still
show no link to the Bahraini Government." Emails to Gamma through their website went unanswered.
"The revelations started a worldwide debate about the balance between surveillance and privacy."
Citizenfour offers a fly-on-the wall account of Snowden. Poitras filmed him at the Mira hotel
in Hong Kong last year during interviews with journalists that resulted in a series of stories in
the Guardian about the extent of surveillance by the US and British intelligence agencies as well
as the internet and telecom companies. The revelations started a worldwide debate about the
balance between surveillance and privacy.
... ... ...
In his first comment about the documentary, which Poitras had shown to him in advance, Snowden
told the Guardian:
"I hope people won't see this as a story about heroism. It's actually a story about what
ordinary people can do in extraordinary circumstances."
LeDingue
Pekka ->
Kohonen,
11 October
2014 11:00am
He did what he had to in moving to Russia
As I understand it Snowden had no choice in the matter. The US government cancelled his passport
whilst he was in the Moscow airport to stop him leaving.
They even forced the Bolivian presidential plane to be landed in Austria because they thought
Snowden might be on board.
Effectively it is the US government that forced Snowden to remain in Russia. Kind of daft
really, from the US government's point of view, because it's one of the most difficult places
for US goons to kidnap or murder him. He probably quite likes it there.
It's refreshing to read a good news story in relation to US government police-state barbarity.
I hope Snowden and his partner find some happiness and enjoy their home and life in Russia,
all the best to them both!
Jun 27, 2013 |
WIRED
Today's revelations that the National Security Agency collected bulk data on the email traffic
of millions of Americans provides startling evidence for the first time to support a whistleblower's
longstanding claims that AT&T was forwarding global internet traffic to the government from secret
rooms inside its offices.
The collection program, which lasted from 2001 to 2011, involved email metadata - the "enveloped"
information for email that reveals the sender's address and recipient, as well as IP addresses and
websites visited, the
Guardian newspaper reported today.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, revealed in 2006 that his job duties included
connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to a secret room in AT&T's San Francisco
office. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabins were being
installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, he said.
The split circuits included traffic from peering links connecting to other internet backbone
providers, meaning that AT&T was also diverting traffic routed from its network to or from other
domestic and international providers, Klein said.
That's how the data was being vacuumed to the government, Klein said today.
"This is a complete vindication," Klein, a San Francisco Bay area retired man, said in a telephone
interview.
Soulskill
maynard writes:
Investigative Journalist
James Bamford knows
a thing or two more
than most about the National Security Agency. Across his more than three-decade long
career digging muck out of exactly those places U.S. government intelligence agencies preferred
he wouldn't tread, he's published five books and over eighty press reports. At times, this
made for some tense confrontations with intelligence officials from an organization once
so secret even few members of Congress knew of its existence.
For the last several years public focus on the NSA has been on Bush and Obama era reports
of illicit domestic spying. From allegations of warrantless wiretapping
reported
by James Risen in 2005 to secret documents
released to journalists at The Guardian by Edward Snowden a year ago. And smack in the
middle, Bamford's 2012 revelation of the
existence
of a huge, exabyte-capable data storage facility then under construction in Bluffdale,
Utah.
Given all this attention on recent events, it might come as a surprise to some that
almost forty years ago Senator Frank Church convened a congressional committee to investigate
reports of unlawful activities by U.S. intelligence agencies, including illegal domestic
wiretapping by the NSA. At the time, Church brought an oversight magnifying glass over
what was then half-jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency." And then, like today, James
Bamford was in the thick of it, with a Snowden-like cloak-and-dagger game of spy-vs-journalist.
It all began by giving testimony before the Church Committee. Writing yesterday in The
Intercept, Bamford
tells his firsthand historical account of what led him to testify as a direct witness
to NSA's wiretapping of domestic communications decades ago and then details the events
that led to the publication of his first book The Puzzle Palace back in 1982.
Bamford writes:
...during the summer of 1975, as reports began leaking out from the Church Committee,
I was surprised to learn that the NSA was claiming that it had shut down all of its
questionable operations a year and a half earlier. Surprised because I knew the eavesdropping
on Americans had continued at least into the prior fall, and may have still been going
on. After thinking for a day or so about the potential consequences of blowing the whistle
on the NSA-I was still in the Naval Reserve, still attending drills one weekend a month,
and still sworn to secrecy with an active NSA clearance-I nevertheless decided to call
the Church Committee.
But he didn't stop at the witness stand. Afterward, he continued researching the matter
for a book. And the further he dug, the more waves he made. Until someone slipped him a
then recently declassified copy of
a 1976 Justice Department memo [PDF] detailing a criminal investigation into illicit
domestic spying by the NSA. But when agency officials discovered he had that document they
took extraordinary measures attempting to get it back. They threatened to prosecute under
the 1917 Espionage Act and retroactively reclassified the memo to squelch its contents.
Fearing someone might break into his home and steal the manuscript, Bamford arranged
to transport and secure a copy outside of U.S. jurisdiction with a colleague at the
Sunday Times of London. It was only upon the 1982 publication of Puzzle Palace
that the agency dropped their pursuit of Bamford and his document as a lost cause. That's
at least one stark difference between then and today when it comes to whistleblowers - back
then, they merely threatened espionage charges.
Yogi Berra famously once said, "It's like Deja Vu all over again." And though the Yankees'
star wasn't speaking of illicit domestic wiretaps by the national security state, given
a comparison of recent revelations to those detailed by Bamford decades earlier the quote
certainly fits. In telling his story of how he published details about the last NSA Merry-Go-Round
with warrantless wiretapping, Bamford shows us that our recent troubles of lawless surveillance
aren't so unique. It's deja-vu all over again. But if deja vu is like a waking dream, this
seems more a recurring nightmare for a body-politic lured to snoring slumber by a siren-song
of political passivity.
That old Justice Department memo isn't likely to wake the public from their slumber.
But within its pages is a stark warning we all should have heeded. As Bamford notes in that
Intercept story, the report's conclusion that NSA lawlessness stems straight from
the birth of the agency suggests a constitutional conflict systemic and intentional.
...the NSA's top-secret "charter" issued by the Executive Branch, exempts the agency
from legal restraints placed on the rest of the government. "Orders, directives, policies,
or recommendations of any authority of the Executive branch relating to the collection
... of intelligence," the charter reads, "shall not be applicable to Communications
Intelligence activities, unless specifically so stated." This so-called "birth certificate,"
the Justice Department report concluded, meant the NSA did not have to follow any restrictions
placed on electronic surveillance "unless it was expressly directed to do so." In short,
the report asked, how can you prosecute an agency that is above the law?
Here's the "Prosecutive
Summary" (PDF).
TubeSteak, October 03, 2014
@12:29PM
Footage released of Guardian editors destroying Snowden hard drives [theguardian.com]
In two tense meetings last June and July [2013] the cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, explicitly
warned the Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, to return the Snowden documents.
Heywood, sent personally by David Cameron, told the editor to stop publishing articles based
on leaked material from American's National Security Agency and GCHQ. At one point Heywood
said: "We can do this nicely or we can go to law". He added: "A lot of people in government
think you should be closed down."
I would no longer consider England a safe country to use as a backup for documents that the
American government wants back.
Mister Liberty(769145), October 03, 2014
In fact, England is the worst. It (i.e. those that succeeded in the most recent power grab)
-- it tries to be the best boy in the US' class Hegemony 6.0, in the process of the attempt
surpassing any other anglo-saxon nation in crude disregard for constitutional and international
law, and shamelessly whistling the tune of mega-millionaires.
On a slightly related note: is there still a bounty for Tony Blair's neck?
#48056829
the more
things change the more they stay the sam (Score:3)
What gets me in all of this (I RTFA earlier) are a few sections
But during the summer of 1975, as reports began leaking out from the Church Committee, I
was surprised to learn that the NSA was claiming that it had shut down all of its questionable
operations a year and a half earlier. Surprised because I knew the eavesdropping on Americans
had continued at least into the prior fall, and may have still been going on. After thinking
for a day or so about the potential consequences of blowing the whistle on the NSA-I was
still in the Naval Reserve, still attending drills one weekend a month, and still sworn
to secrecy with an active NSA clearance-I nevertheless decided to call the Church Committee.
So over 30 years ago, the NSA was doing the same thing its doing now. When it gets caught
it says it stops doing it, yet it continues to do it (yet we didnt shut them down 30 years ago??!?!)
and this one is a doozy. At the same time the feds are complaining about google and apple
using system wide encryption as in their eyes it "puts people above the law" yet at the SAME
time the NSA charter puts the NSA above the law
The report's prosecutive summary also pointed to the NSA's top-secret "charter" issued by
the Executive Branch, which exempts the agency from legal restraints placed on the rest
of the government. "Orders, directives, policies, or recommendations of any authority of
the Executive branch relating to the collection . . . of intelligence," the charter reads,
"shall not be applicable to Communications Intelligence activities, unless specifically
so stated." This so-called "birth certificate," the Justice Department report concluded,
meant the NSA did not have to follow any restrictions placed on electronic surveillance
"unless it was expressly directed to do so." In short, the report asked, how can you prosecute
an agency that is above the law?
(1112795), October 03, 2014
@03:25PM (#48058055)
I
heard similar stories about web traffic in 1998
I was just graduating high school, an intern in the IT department of a sizable company in
CA, my first tech job. We had an issue with a Unix print server and the IT manager (awesome
boss who loved the Grateful Dead and drove an old beetle) called in a friend to consult
for a couple days. Being a bright eyed youth with lots of interest in how this grey haired
consultant was able to command a $150/hr consulting fee, I asked a lot of questions. And
he told me some awesome stories about the early internet. This guy was a battle hardened
networking/internet engineer going back to the early 1970s (graduated from MIT in the early
60s), he helped connect the first copper trans-pacific data cables from San Fransisco to
Asia. Probably the most interesting stories he told were about what the NSA was doing circa
1980s.
He said the buildings that house the trans-oceanic data cables were designed from the
ground up with small rooms, broom closet sized, that the primary data cables run through.
Nobody other than federal agents with code word level clearance were allowed in via a heavy
security door that had a guard 24/7. He said that all data traffic entering those rooms
left them with a noticable amount of latency (at the time, late 80s he said it was about
10ms), but no hops. He claimed that the federal government had been monitoring internet
activity in these data hubs since the dawn of the web.
I still believe him to this day, and have not been surprised by Snowden's revelations
or really any news I see about the government snooping on traffic. The internet started
as a DARPA project. It would be stupid to assume that data traversing what is essentially
a military network can't be monitored by government entities.
maynard, October 03, 2014
@08:06PM
Re:I
heard similar stories about web traffic in 19
sdguero wrote:
He said the buildings that house the trans-oceanic data cables were designed from the
ground up with small rooms, broom closet sized, that the primary data cables run through.
... He said that all data traffic entering those rooms left them with a
noticable amount of latency (at the time, late 80s he said it was about 10ms), but no
hops. He claimed that the federal government had been monitoring internet activity in
these data hubs since the dawn of the web.
Mark Klein, former tech from AT&T, claimed to have witnessed installation of one such
room at a San Francisco POP in 2002. He gave a formal statement to attorneys at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, which was printed in this
Wired Article [wired.com]. The money quote is below:
While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping
into the Worldnet circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal. I saw this
in a design document available to me, entitled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring,
San Francisco" dated Dec. 10, 2002. I also saw design documents dated Jan. 13, 2004
and Jan. 24, 2003, which instructed technicians on connecting some of the already in-service
circuits to the "splitter" cabinet, which diverts some of the light signal to the secret
room. The circuits listed were the Peering Links, which connect Worldnet with other
networks and hence the whole country, as well as the rest of the world.One of the
documents listed the equipment installed in the secret room, and this list included
a Narus STA 6400, which is a "Semantic Traffic Analyzer". The Narus STA technology is
known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability
to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets. The company's
advertising boasts that its technology "captures comprehensive customer usage data
... and transforms it into actionable information.... (It) provides complete
visibility for all internet applications.
EFF proceeded to file a lawsuit
(Hepting v. AT&T) [eff.org] claiming infringement of privacy by the firm. Though no
finding of fact was challenged, ultimately it was dismissed due to retroactive FISA legislation
signed by Bush legalizing the process. On appeal, the Supreme Court refused to review the
case.
Though many argued that Klein was just one person with a grudge against his employer,
and thus dismissed his testimony as overblown or vindictive, in 2013 Edward Snowden's revelations
"proved what he'd said was true. That the government did work with network service providers
- including AT&T - to install monitoring systems throughout the Internet backbone.
TheRealHocusLocus
(2319802) writes: on Friday
October 03, 2014 @10:59PM (#48060891)
Folks like
Thomas Drake
[wikipedia.org],
Bill Binney
[wikipedia.org] and Mark
Klein [wikipedia.org] hold more credibility.
Even James Bamford has been an 'asset' of theirs over the years.
Puzzle Palace [1982]
[wikipedia.org] introduced the NSA to a whole generation of young folk interested in intelligence
careers, focusing on its broad global reach and exciting technical resources. And yet it
also contained a clear and dire warning that a charter-be-damned domestic spy apparatus
was being built -- I personally believe this revelation was leaked from NSA insiders (probably
close to retirement) who did not like the agency's new direction.
Body of Secrets [2001]
[wikipedia.org] was more sedate about this, but it also contained a gripping account of
the 1967 USS Liberty
incident [wikipedia.org] that stirred controversy, but again like the warning, a story
the NSA insiders wished to be told.
Down
the rabbit hole we go. [slashdot.org]
Moscow-exiled US whistleblower Edward Snowden and British Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
are to receive the Right Livelihood Award. They're among five persons awarded Sweden's "alternative
Nobel prize."
The Stockholm-based Right Livelihood Award Foundation on Wednesday praised Snowden, a former
US intelligence agent, for "revealing the unprecedented extent of state surveillance."
It said Rusbridger, the editor in chief of Britain's The Guardian newspaper, also won the
award for "responsible journalism in the public interest.
"None of them could have done what they did without the other, " said foundation director
Ole von Uexkull.
The announcement, originally set for Thursday, was brought forward, after a leak by Swedish
broadcaster SVT.
Foundation denied access
Von Uexkull, the nephew of Jacob von Uexkull who founded the prize in 1980, said all winners
had been invited to a December 1 award ceremony in Stockholm.
Discussions on "potential" travel arrangements for Snowden, who remains exiled in Russia,
would be held with the Swedish government, von Uexkull said.
He added that the foundation had been denied access to the Swedish foreign ministry's media
room, where award ceremonies have been held since 1995.
Three other winners
Snowden, who is wanted by the US for exposing mass data collection by the US National Security
Agency (NSA) and Rusbridger are honorary winners, meaning they will not receive the award's
customary 500,000 kronor (54,500 euros).
The other three prize winners, named to receive the monetary award, are Pakistani human rights
lawyer Asma Jahanger, Sri Lankan rights activist Basil Fernando and US environmentalist Bill
McKibbben.
Jahanger is a human rights lawyer who has defended women, children, religious minorities
and the poor in Pakistan, the award citation said.
Fernando, originally from Sri Lanka, led the Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission
for nearly two decades and now serves as its director of policy and programs.
McKibben is founder of 350.org, a grass-roots environmental movement aimed at spurring action
to fight climate change.
lpj/kms (dpa, AFP, AP)
08/25/14 | The Intercept
The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) is secretly supplying data to almost 24 government agencies
with ICREACH, a "Google-like" search engine designed to share more than 850 billion records
about phone calls, emails, cellphone locations, and Internet chats, according to classified
documents.
The documents indicate ICREACH has allowed NSA for years to make massive amounts of surveillance
data directly accessible to domestic law enforcement agencies. "[The ICREACH team] began over
two years ago with a basic concept compelled by the [Intelligence Community's] increasing need
for communications metadata and NSA's ability to collect, process, and store vast amounts of
communications metadata related to worldwide intelligence targets," says a secret 2007 memo.
The search tool is able to handle 2 billion to 5 billion new surveillance records daily, and
it facilitates access to a vast database that intelligence analysts can mine for "foreign intelligence,"
which is a less-specific term than counterterrorism. The system's simple search interface enables
analysts to run searches against specific "selectors" affiliated with a person of interest,
and return a results page that can be used to uncover the subject's social network.
A U.S. official reports ICREACH is not a data repository, but rather enables analysts to
execute one-stop searches for information from a broad array of separate databases. Legal experts
are troubled about ICREACH's scope and its potential use for domestic, non-terrorism-related
inquiries.
View Full Article
Privately owned surveillance companies are offering systems capable of tracking the location
of any cell phone user to within a few blocks or less to governments around the globe.
Marketing materials from companies describe surveillance systems that exploit the lax-to-nonexistent
security of the decades-old SS7 telecommunications network used by telecom firms around the
world to route calls, text messages, and data. German security researcher Tobias Engel first
demonstrated methods of gathering location data from the SS7 network in 2008 and more sophisticated
techniques have been developed since then. A more secure replacement for SS7 is in development,
but it will likely be a decade or more before it is fully deployed, and although some carriers
cooperate with government surveillance efforts, some systems are capable of harvesting location
data without carriers' knowledge.
The systems are marketed to governments and often paired with other tools such as ISMI catchers,
portable devices also known by the trade name StingRay, which act as cellular transmitters and
are capable of locating devices, intercepting calls, data, and texts, as well as installing
spyware on phones. Although such systems are outlawed within some countries' boundaries, they
often are marketed to governments for the purpose of tracking individuals across borders and
a lack of international law concerning the technology makes regulating its use extremely difficult.
Internal documents leaked by activists earlier this month show police clients from several
nations complaining to German company FinFisher GmbH, which sells spyware to government clients,
that their products were being thwarted by antivirus programs. A Pakistani client complains
in the documents that antivirus software was able to block his agency's efforts to spy with
FinFisher's products, a complaint echoed by a Qatari agency in another document.
The documents also show FinFisher representatives advised an Estonian agency that a product
enabling users to steal usernames, passwords, and documents using a USB flashdrive might not
be able to bypass certain antivirus software. The world of cyberspying by police and other government
agencies is a shadowy one and the companies that sell products for this purpose are often very
secretive. One such company is Italy-based Hacking Team, which, although none of its products
are known to be used by U.S. agencies, is a fixture at U.S. police trade shows and boasts a
U.S. headquartered in Annapolis, MD. "A lot of people rely on antivirus for protection against
cybercriminals," says Morgan Marquis-Boire, a senior researcher at the University of Toronto's
Citizen Lab. "You have the people we pay to protect us from very real crime trying to prevent
this from working properly. That is somewhat concerning."
Northeastern University researchers are studying a series of sophisticated attacks
via email against the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), a Chinese nongovernmental organization. The
researchers found the language and subject matter of malicious emails were specifically tailored
to appear friendly, in which the sender was impersonating someone else to lure the recipient
into opening an attachment. As part of the study, two volunteers from the WUC donated more than
1,000 suspicious emails that were also sent to more than 700 unique email addresses.
The researchers used new software and other methods to discover that social engineering was
important to the attackers' ability to gain access to victims' accounts, and the suspicious
emails were sent from compromised accounts within the company or contained email addresses that
differed from friendly addresses by a single character or two. They also found the malware delivery
vectors were most often attached documents rather than ZIP files or EXE files. The malware delivered
to the victims also was similar to that used in other recent targeted attacks, rather than representing
zero-day malware.
Northeastern professor Engin Kirda says understanding these types of attacks is important
to developing software that can protect against them.
colliemum,
July 30, 2014 at 10:01 am
"Existing Laws" – allow me a hollow laugh!No government, AFAIK, is or will enforce existing
laws, because making new laws which always make things worse is what they love. It shows
they are 'doing something'!
As for that Press (Royal) Charter – yes, let's thrash Freedom of the Press so that a
few celebrities don't find themselves on the pages of The SUN. As for that phone hacking
and the violation of privacy – our secret services do it all the time, privacy be d*mned.
NSA doesn't even regard the privacy of Madame Merkel, listening in on her private phone
calls.
Existing laws? Nah, regulate the lot once and for all. Lawyers have to live as well,
you know!
At least five percent of the internet's top 100,000 websites are using a new kind of
online tracking system – one which essentially takes a "fingerprint" of your computer via its
web browser.
What's more, the software – known as canvas fingerprinting – is nearly impossible to block
using conventional privacy tools.
According to a new report by
ProPublica, the curtains over canvas fingerprinting will officially be lifted in a forthcoming
paper authored by researchers at Princeton University and Belgium's KU Leuven University.
Here's how it works: When you visit a website that features such tracking technology, the
site asks your browser to "draw a hidden image." Since every computer renders the image
in a different way, that drawing is used to label your device with a unique number that allows
trackers to keep an eye on your browsing activity across the internet.
Although there is more than one type of canvas fingerprinting, the most widely used software
is developed by AddThis, and is reportedly used on popular websites like Whitehouse.gov,
online dating site PlentyOfFish, CBS, and even YouPorn (a list of known sites using the software
can be found
here).
An AddThis spokesperson also said that it did not inform the websites in question when it
put its tracking technology in place. After ProPublica's original article was published, a YouPorn
spokesperson said the website was unaware the app was tracking users and has removed AddThis
functionality.
AddThis chief executive Rich Harris stressed that the company does not use canvas fingerprinting
for anything other than ad targeting and personalization, and that users can stop their data
from being used for advertising or marketing by installing a specific
opt-out cookie on their
computers. This would not stop AddThis from collecting data, however; it would simply stop them
from using it to custom-tailor ads for you.
The company also said it does not use any data it gathers from government websites. So far,
it claims to have only used data for "internal research and development."
Still, the fact that all users have to rely on is a promise from AddThis "is not the
best privacy assurance," said Princeton computer science professor Arvind Narayanan, who
helped lead the research team responsible for uncovering the system.
If opting out is not a satisfactory option on its own, you're left with a few different possibilities.
You could download the Tor browser,
which helps users avoid numerous types of online tracking, or you could block JavaScript from
loading in your browser, which ProPublica notes could make many websites not work properly.
There's also a browser in the works called
Chameleon, which is specifically
designed to block fingerprinting, but at this stage is only recommended for "tech-savvy users."
AddThis is reportedly contemplating ending its test of the tracking tech soon because
"it's not uniquely identifying enough."
"The constant stream of new revelations shows how disturbingly little we really know about the
precise nature of surveillance..."
The document was written by the office of Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights, who said it revealed a "disturbing" lack of transparency about the reasons governments
approve or start large-scale monitoring of what people do online.
Mass surveillance, said Ms Pillay, was becoming a "dangerous habit rather than an exceptional
measure" for governments.
'Constant stream'
These programmes necessarily interfered with privacy, and governments must do more to ensure
that this curbing of freedoms was "neither arbitrary nor unlawful".
The further that governments went in scooping up information about citizens, the harder they
needed to work to justify the snooping and monitor it to guard against excess, said Ms Pillay.
The report said laws that set out how surveillance could be carried out must be publicly
available and demonstrate specific reasons why the monitoring was taking place.
It said measures to force net companies, mobile operators and others to retain data on what
people did online and whom they talked to had little justification.
Simply gathering data, even if it was never consulted, could potentially curb privacy because
too few states put good limits on who could look at the data and what it could be used for.
"The constant stream of new revelations shows how disturbingly little we really know
about the precise nature of surveillance," said Ms Pillay.
Revelations about the detailed location records stored on smartphones indicates just
how much information companies including Apple and Google are able to gather. \
But it's not just the phone-makers – apps on your phone are hungry for your personal
info too. So is your phone snooping on you?
Here, we reveal what you need to know – and whether you can do anything about it
Dogoodnow, 16 July 2014 12:04pm
Another problem with Android (as far as I can see, as implemented on an early Samsung
Note) is that it keeps turning on apps that you have or think you have turned off or force
closed.
Especially true of all the Google related material?
StockBet -> Dogoodnow, 16 July 2014 1:16pm
Watch the PBS documentary called "United States of Secrets" and what they said about
Google.
fragilegorilla -> StockBet, 16 July 2014 1:23pm
There's also a very good documentary available on Netflix right now called "terms and
conditions may apply".
It covers this constant snooping and what we actually sign away when we tick those
little 'I accept' boxes.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084953/
dourscot -> Dogoodnow, 16 July 2014 1:36pm
You can't stop or de-install Google's core apps on any mainstream Android device.
The only way around this is to use an open install like CyanogenMod.
tr1ck5t3r -> dourscot, 16 July 2014 2:04pm
CyanogenMod has had its own bugs will facilitate snooping though. However as
the Play store app is not installed by default, its worth checking the terms and conditions
when a CyanogenMod user install it.
supermarine -> fragilegorilla, 16 July 2014 7:37pm
I've watched it…I was tickled by the revelation that a number of people had signed their
souls to the devil.
Fred1, 16 July 2014 12:09pm
I really can't see the point of most Apps.
Sure WhatsApp and Viber are useful but the vast majority are just websites made for phones.
And they're free so there's a catch.
I hate using WhatsApp and Viber because I know they're as about as secure as using a
microphone on a busy high street and the people behind it our mining the shit out of my
data. However I use them because they're a useful.
I just wish you could choose. Whore your data or pay for the service. The internet should
be about getting Ł1 from billions of people but instead nowadays its just about whoring
data. It's most likely all bull shit like investing in sub-prime mortgages but hey lets
pretend this data has any value.
My approach is to download very few apps, never give my location, never use social media
(because I don't understand why it exists) and never say anything vaguely interesting on
WhatsApp, Viber or indeed CIF. If you don't believe me read this comment.
Westmorlandia -> KatyEB, 16 July 2014 12:12pm
Yes, and so many pre-installed, that you can't delete. Still I prefer it to my old iPhone.
This is easily the worst thing about Android - endless unwanted apps that take up storage
space, use memory, and can't be removed. It's incredibly annoying - it's like they're stealing
part of the phone I paid for.
Westmorlandia, 16 July 2014 12:11pm
Because of the opacity of the system, it's crying out for consumer protection regulation.
Unfortunately governments like collecting our data too, so are actually quite keen for
this sort of data collection to go on.
pretendname -> Westmorlandia, 16 July 2014 12:24pm
Any reasonable left or right centre government, would move to ban Google Glass immediately.
But our government has tipped into fascism.
There is a reasonable argument that banning these devices would not be 'progressive'.
By which they mean, you can't put a genie back in the bottle. But this is simply rationalising
away fascism.
We ban or blacklist new technologies all the time, it's just that we've chosen not to
deal with this one because it helps our government suppress anything they might see as seditious.
This wholesale surveillance of citizens is simply wrong. Just like secret trials and
detention without charge.. is simply wrong.
afinch -> pretendname, 16 July 2014 1:23pm
Any reasonable left or right centre government, would move to ban Google Glass
immediately.
Eh? Do you think concealed cameras should be illegal? Telephoto lenses? Small microphones?
Spy equipment far more covert, and far cheaper, than Google glass has been available for
decades.
What's liberal about banning an underpowered wearable camera that costs too much?
pretendname -> afinch, 16 July 2014 1:29pm
It's not the camera that's the problem with Google glass.. It's that it's a network enabled
camera which is permanently switched on and recording, and is reporting your location and
everything you see and hear to the government, and worse, a company.
Now if you restricted yourself to looking at members of your own family that's ok.. but
if you're going to wear it on a bus, it's going to record not just your movement, but through
facial recognition, the moments of everyone you see.
Can't you see any danger in that?
fallenrider -> pretendname , 16 July 2014 3:09pm
But it doesn't actually do that though does it?!
It records when you tell it to record, not constantly. But don't let facts get in the
way or your paranoia hey.
pretendname -> fallenrider, 16 July 2014 3:35pm
Have you been asleep for the last 2 years. Google, have been actively working with
the NSA to provide every single piece of information about you that they can.
But of course... I'll have to take your word for it because you are clearly a Google
Employee on the Glass project.
Otherwise.. how would you know what it does or doesn't do?
LegoRemix -> pretendname, 16 July 2014 4:21pm
As has been repeated over, and over again. No tech company is actively working with the
NSA. What happened is they got served National Security Letters that *force* their cooperation
with government demands. If they don't comply, their businiess is shut down.
You can moan about a lot of other things tech companies do, but this is literally a 'gun
to the back of the head' scenario for them
pretendname -> LegoRemix , 16 July 2014 4:26pm
I'm not sure...
Eric Schmidt has been attending Bilderberg for the last few years.
From that I surmise that he is fully on board.
But.. even if tech companies are forced into this, the result is the same. It is a bizarre
situation in which, given full details and facts, people still deny reality.. even while
it's happening.
You couldn't make it up.
Google glass has a camera which is potentially permantently switched on.
That camera can be picking out faces, mapping those faces to some sort of engram, and http
posting them off to gootle with a location and date stamp, or storing that list of information
locally for later upload.
If it can do it... Recently revelations seem to suggest, it is doing it.
MtnClimber -> afinch, 16 July 2014 5:47pm
It's far worse now than before "smart phones" Before, spying was done on an individual
basis. One person wanted to spy on another.
Now, with smartphones, everyone is under surveillance. Google glass is an extension of
the spy phones that we all carry. It is getting worse by the day.
robinaldlowrise -> LegoRemix, 16 July 2014 10:18pm
No tech company is actively working with the NSA.
Of course they aren't (cough). Nobody is working with the NSA. The NSA is an evil unto
itself alone (cough).
Bluecloud, 16 July 2014 12:14pm
My Android tablet came with Google Maps, which requires permission to access all my contacts,
all my WLAN info as well as my location (of course, it's satnav device) and lots of other
personal info. Their demand for ever greater intrusion into my life increases with every
update.
This is a high price to pay for such apps. Beware!
swishy -> Bluecloud , 16 July 2014 12:25pm
I can see a future not too far ahead where these phones will be the only available
option which will basically trap people in the system. Permission to access personal
info may not necessarily be requested and ability to turn off GPS might not be possible.
There's a gloomy picture to be going on with.
beedoubleyou -> Bluecloud , 16 July 2014 12:29pm
I don't understand the price. Nobody has anything to gain by knowing any of my contacts,
especially me.
Nialler, 16 July 2014 12:14pm
My experience with the Galaxy was that in order to use a lot of the functionality I had
to register with Google. This gives them my e-mail, my network, my location (if using
the GPS) my buying preferences etc.
Sod that.
My wife used the GPS to find an address and when we arrived a photo of the house popped
up on the screen. I find all this terribly intrusive.
If someone stopped you on the street and asked you those questions you'd tell them to
fling their hook.
tilw -> Nialler, 16 July 2014 12:44pm
My way of handling Google and similar accounts is to give Google my email address
at another on-line "everything including the kitchen sink" service and vice versa.
Both the email addresses are eminently disposable and neither of them point to any of
my actual "real" email addresses. It can be a bit of a pain keeping track of which service
has which disposable address, but it's worth it.
This technique also pretty quickly reveals which "services" have passed email addresses
on to spammers either knowingly or otherwise.
blipvert -> tilw, 16 July 2014 12:55pm
Google started to get a bit sniffy about this kind thing a while ago, and Boss Man Schmidt
declared Google+ to be an identity service, and only real names would do.
Fortunately, they have recently abandoned this Big Brother approach in a desperate attempt
to actually get customers to use Google+.
MasterPale -> Nialler, 16 July 2014 1:35pm
Registering with Google is only necessary in order to buy apps from Google's app market.
There are other sources of apps such as Samsung, Amazon, app developers websites, app
review websites. Of course you have to register with these sources too but the process is
generally less intrusive.
You can disable and uninstall Google apps such as Gmail, Google search, Maps etc.
And install alternatives which do not gather your data such as Hotmail, Hushmail, Firefox
browser with ad-blockers and anti-trackers, DuckDuckGo or StartPage search engines, and
Bing maps or TomTom (if there is no app use your phone browser to access the websites -
create a bookmark and you have instant map service).
People are often afraid to edit their phone/tablet, a fear promoted by the dire pop-up
warnings that if you turn off x it will melt your phone. No it wont!
Do not install junk apps. You can expect them to be infested with spyware and to involve
'in-app purchases'. Choose quality apps, recommended by reliable reviews. When installing
an app, buy the paid version and save money on data long-term.
'Free' apps invade your privacy, keep data turned on to feed you a stream of adverts.
You pay in lots of ways. It costs 69p for an app or maybe Ł2.99 for the expensive apps?
And how much is privacy worth to you? How much do you pay for data?
If you have not seen an Adam Curtis documentary nor watched the BBC's current documentary
series 'Meet the Men Who Made Us Spend' (on iPlayer) then I recommend them. They are light
and fluffy, not overly intellectual, but they review the history of the last fifty years
and the growth of consumption and offer an explanation of why so many people are obese,
we spend too much time and money on pointless consumption, and are politically oppressed.
It might make you decide you don't need so many gadgets or that you don't need so many apps
on your gadgets. It will certainly make you reject 'smart things' and the continuing infantilisation
and passification of the population.
dourscot -> Nialler, 16 July 2014 1:41pm
But you can log out of Google. This doesn't solve your problem with other apps but it's
not as bad as you suggest.
ConanOB -> Nialler , 16 July 2014 4:48pm
You buy an iPhone, apple asks for you credit card number, expiration date and you need
to create and email account and use a back up email account if you are imperfect and might
someday forget your password.
Everything comes at a price, the more secured and locked down you want your smartphone
to be, expect to pay a premium price for it.
It is not difficult for phone companies to retrieve text messages etc and time, date
and duration of calls you made every day.
Just stay away from apps like the flashlight app that needs access to your microphone
or any app that request access to your contacts.
NotANumbers -> MasterPale, 18 July 2014 1:05am
I use F-Droid. It is a repository of free and open source applications. If you don't
trust one, you can just have a look at the source code, providing you can understand it,
and heck, even if you can't, you could still download, safe in the knowledge that there
will inevitably be more eyes viewing the code and therefore less chance you'll have a malicious
or snooping application.
swishy, 16 July 2014 12:18pm
I have one of those Samsung Galaxy Note phones. It's a work phone so doesn't actually
belong to me. I just switch off the WIFI and GPS which is hopefully enough to stop my location
being tracked.
ThisFieldIsBlank -> swishy , 16 July 2014 12:26pm
No it isn't! You will still be tracked as the phone continuously send signals to
the network to check for signals. Even Brick phones do it, it is an inherent feature of
mobile or cellular phones.
bargepoled2, 16 July 2014 12:19pm
With android kit kat 4.4 you can activate or deactivate each apps location settings.
dont want an app to use your location or know it?
turn of its ability to do that in app settings.
July 12, 2014 | rt/
Reuters
At least 80 percent of all audio calls are gathered and stored by the NSA, whistleblower
William Binney has revealed. The former code-breaker says the spy agency's ultimate aim is no
less than total population control.
The National Security Agency lies about what it stores, said William Binney, one of the highest
profile whistleblowers to ever emerge from the NSA, at a
conference in
London organized by the Center for Investigative Journalism on July 5. Binney left the agency
shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center because he was disgusted at the organizations
move towards public surveillance.
"At least 80 percent of fiber-optic cables globally go via the US," Binney said.
"This is no accident and allows the US to view all communication coming in. At least 80
percent of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies
about what it stores."
Binney has no evidence to substantiate his claims as he did not take any documents with him
when he left the NSA. However, he insists the organization is untruthful about its intelligence
gathering practices and their ultimate aim. He says that recent Supreme Court decisions have
led him to believe the NSA won't stop until it has complete control over the population.
"The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control," Binney said, "but
I'm a little optimistic with some recent Supreme Court decisions, such as law enforcement mostly
now needing a warrant before searching a smartphone."
During his speech at the conference, Binney praised spy-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden
for disseminating the classified documents that revealed the NSA's global spy programs. The
latest revelations showed that contrary to the NSA's claims, the majority of information the
agency gathers is from ordinary citizens with no connection to terrorism.
NSA gathered
'startlingly intimate' data on ordinary citizens, Snowden data reveals
Washington has defended its spy programs, claiming that the NSA targets individuals with
connections to known terrorist groups to thwart attacks. Binney said this was a lie and the
NSA had stopped "zero attacks" with its intelligence gathering programs.
One of the main factors that has allowed the NSA to increase its spy programs is the lack
of oversight in the US, argues Binney. In particular, he took issue with the Foreign Surveillance
Court (FISA), which oversees the issue of search warrants against people suspected of terrorism.
Binney believes the court is meaningless and always sides with the US government.
"The Fisa court has only the government's point of view," he said. "There are
no other views for the judges to consider. There have been at least 15-20 trillion constitutional
violations for US domestic audiences and you can double that globally."
Revelations about US global spy programs have sparked mass indignation, with one American
judge saying the surveillance was almost Orwellian in nature. German Chancellor Angela Merkel
also compared US intelligence policy to the antics of the Stasi secret police in the former
East Germany.
See also:
Federal
judge says NSA's phone surveillance program is likely unconstitutional
Selected Comments
jeff strehlow 13.07.2014 00:48
Toni Lehto 12.07.2014 17:02
I'm as against NSA surveillance as the next guy, but I say BS.
Why? Consider a 1 minute phone call at 50 kbps would require storage of 3MB. Further
assume an "average" phone call is 3 mins and there are 12.4 BILLION phone calls per
day worldwide, capturing 80% of that traffic for 365 would require 33 MILLION terabytes
of storage PER YEAR.
Your calculation is much higher than the actual requirements for 2 reasons:
1. 50 kbps isn't needed for voice communications. 5-6 kbps is enough.
2. You didn't take data compression into account.
Sunshine 12.07.2014 20:31
The current security/intelligence services are a vile stain on the memories and sacrifices
of those who fought and died in the hope of preserving the freedoms that this country was
founded upon and we cherish(ed) in our hearts.
Its the height of irony....you want to pull out all the stops to defend our country and
way of life by destroying it....
Remember, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not
exist.....we did not know (for sure) the devil was walking amongst, and destroying our way
of life, until Snowden, Drake and Binney opened our eyes and minds.....
Otto Moser 12.07.2014 19:31
SUPER !
So that Austrian radio comedian, who phoned the US Embassy, asking for a back-up of his
daughter's birthday party video, because he claimed to have inadvertently deleted it, was
absolutely within reality !
Naturally, the Embassy was not amused !
Fábio O. Ribeiro 12.07.2014 14:47
iPhone deserves a new name: iNSAmike. Ha, ha, ha... I will not have one.
Emmett 12.07.2014 14:23
NSA is doing what Hoover did as the long time US FBI director. He spied on and blackmailed
US presidents and other politicians so they could never oust and with all the dirt he had
on those politicians masquerading as pillars of the community he forced them to do what
he wanted them to do.
We see proof on a massive scale the NSA uses the Hoover blueprint to blackmail politicians
but have take it a step further with technology to gather information on even more people.
Kenneth T. Tellis 12.07.2014 12:35
What the NSA is now doing, was what the U.S. government accused the Soviets of doing.
If that be the case how is it legal? Which means that Obama Regime is in violation of both
the U.S. Constitution and Civil Rights. No nation can ever trust the good intentions of
the present U.S. government. So much for Democracy in America, an absolute FARCE!
"ordinary internet users 'far outnumbered' legal targets"
When the US National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted the online accounts of legally targeted
foreigners over a four-year period it also collected the conversations of nine times as many
ordinary internet users, both Americans and non-Americans, according to an investigation by
the Washington Post.
Nearly half of those surveillance files contained names, email addresses or other details
that the NSA marked as belonging to US citizens or residents,
the Post reported in a story posted on its website on Saturday night. While the federal
agency tried to protect their privacy by masking more than 65,000 such references to individuals,
the newspaper said it found nearly 900 additional email addresses that could be strongly linked
to US citizens or residents.
The intercepted messages contained material of considerable intelligence value, the Post
reported, such as information about a secret overseas nuclear project, double-dealing by an
ostensible ally, a military calamity that befell an unfriendly power and the identities of aggressive
intruders into US computer networks.
As an example, the newspaper said the files showed that months of tracking communications
across dozens of alias accounts led directly to the capture in 2011 of a Pakistan-based bomb
builder suspected in a 2002 terrorist bombing in Bali. The Post said it was withholding other
examples, at the request of the CIA, that would compromise ongoing investigations.
The material reviewed by the Post included roughly 160,000 intercepted email and instant-message
conversations, some of them hundreds of pages long, and 7,900 documents taken from more than
11,000 online accounts. It spanned president Barack Obama's first term, 2009 to 2012, and was
provided to the Post by the former NSA analyst Edward Snowden.
The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted were catalogued
and recorded, the Post reported. The newspaper described that material as telling "stories of
love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious
conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes".
The material collected included more than 5,000 private photos, the paper said.
The cache Snowden provided to the newspaper came from domestic NSA operations under the broad
authority granted by Congress in 2008 with amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, according to the Post.
By law, the NSA may "target" only foreign nationals located overseas unless it obtains a
warrant based on probable cause from a special surveillance court, the Post said. "Incidental
collection" of third-party communications is inevitable in many forms of surveillance, according
to the newspaper.
In the case of the material Snowden provided, those in an online chat room visited by a target
or merely reading the discussion were included in the data sweep, as were hundreds of people
using a computer server whose internet protocol was targeted.
Derek Scally
, Jul 5, 2014, 09:59
Data collection
A cross-party Bundestag inquiry was this week hearing testimony about US mass data collection
from two former
NSA agents-turned-whistleblowers,
William Binney and
Thomas Drake.
Binney, who for 30 years was a cryptomathematician and technical director at the NSA, resigned
in October 2001 in protest at what he calls the agency's "wrong turn", using the 9/11 attacks
to justify a mass global surveillance drive. "The goal is control of the people," he told German
MPs. "They want to have information about everything; this is really a totalitarian approach."
"Totalitarian" is not a word to be used lightly in Berlin, and the repeated use of the word
by the 70-year-old NSA veteran – an idol of
Edward Snowden – electrified the German committee. Asked about co-operation contracts between
the NSA and BND, Binney answered the question only after the committee went into closed session.
Duplicity
A second NSA man turned whistleblower, Thomas Drake, told the committee his former employer's
spying was the "ultimate form of control" that was "strangling the world". Drake dismissed as
"beyond any credibility" German intelligence claims that they knew nothing of mass data collection
by the NSA on German soil. He even accused
Germany of duplicity in its outrage over US mass surveillance, saying the BND operated as
an "addendum appendix of the NSA".
It is these claims of BND co-operation with the NSA that are likely to cause the most friction
in the Berlin inquiry. Such alleged co-operation is one suggested reason why the federal government
– and government MPs in the inquiry – have been so cool on accepting Edward Snowden's offer
to testify in Berlin. The inquiry members have offered to meet Snowden in Moscow for an informal
chat, but the ex-NSA contractor says he is not interested in assisting them unless he is granted
asylum to testify in person in Berlin.
Facing into a long, hot summer of hearings, opposition committee members claim the government's
lukewarm approach to Snowden speaks volumes about their true level of concern over NSA surveillance.
Things should get interesting when the committee questions the heads of the BND and domestic
intelligence about how the NSA managed to spy on Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone.
the key problem that NSA faces is not even quality of speech-to-text conversion but immense
adaptability of humans. For example there is no automatic way to distinguish fake conversation from
real and that means that "vocabulary" methods can be defeated. Also people in social groups
who face the reality of 100% recording quickly adapt and that means that at this point some conversation
can be conducted simply to "poison the vocabulary and keywords methods". And in important
conversations substitution of works and names can be used. For example Disney cartoons names
or various food items names can be substituted for real names and still recognized by humans in
the context of the conversation, but never by the computer. In this case correct understanding became
highly dependent on the context and as such impossible in automatic mode.
Aug 31, 2014 1:40:12 PM |
6
Der Spiegel and The Intercept have a
new story
about the NSA and Turkey based largely on NSA files Edward Snowden acquired. While the NSA is
cooperating with Turkey's secret services and helps them to assassinate Kurdish separatists
it is also intensely spying on the Turkish leadership.
That is all the way I would have expected.
But there is one detail in the story which, to my best knowledge, reveals a NSA capability
that was so far only rumored about:
In January 2012, US officials proposed supporting Turkey in their fight against the PKK
with diverse measures, including access to a state-of-the-art speech recognition
system that enabled real-time analysis of intercepted conversations. The system
can even search for keywords and identify the person speaking
if a voice sample of that individual has been stored.
There was always some assumption that the NSA would store not only all the medadata of all
phone calls but also the content. Barton Gellman
had published about the MYSTIC and RETRO program which back in 2009 allowed phone call storage
of all calls in Afghanistan for up to a month. Some people refuted that the NSA could or would
do this in more countries or for a longer time arguing that the storage of sound files of the
phone calls would require too much data space.
But when the NSA, as is now revealed, uses sophisticated automated speech-to-text systems
then it has only to store the text data of phone calls which is at least one magnitude smaller
in data size than the sound data.
Every NSA target, potentially ever human being, has now to assume that everything it says
or hears on the phone will be recorded and automatically searched by keywords and then marked,
categorized and stored forever by some NSA system.
This is, I believe, a whole new dimension of NSA spying that may well change the way people
are used to communicate and the intensity in which they are willing to express themselves "in
private". "In private" now hardly exists anymore.
Selected Comments
c1ue | Aug 31, 2014 1:40:12 PM |
6
I wouldn't read too much into this.
For one thing: while text-to-speech is much better than it used to be, it still is
nowhere near where it needs to be - particularly where non-English/non-European speakers
plus regional dialects come into play.
As such, any decent storage would require the source voice recordings as a backup. After
all, it would be highly frustrated to hear "We're going to bomb blurble" and have no recourse
to the original.
Of course, the other ironic corollary is that these systems work best at home.
I would hate to imagine what the output of text to speech would be for a recording of a
conversation between 4 or 5 salafis - all from different parts of the world with different
accents - whereas text-to-speech of John and Jane Smith, US citizens, is probably 95%+
accurate vs. recordings.
somebody | Aug 31, 2014 9:19:53 PM |
18
Frankly, this has been secret service practice from the invention of the telephone
(and much easier then with manually switched connections), the only difference presumably
that they were not bothered with every phone call just the ones from people they were interested
in.
Phones have never been safe. It seems German secret services also have a
long tradition of writing down conversations
in pubs.
The much much larger problem is the lack of democratic control of secret services. Basically
their secrecy. In Germany it just turns out that the Verfassungsschutz
has warned right wing serial underground murderers about police searches thereby enabling
them to continue to murder for 10 years.
Ok. That was just test run for the technology they built ;-)
During that year, it submitted 178 applications for the data to the Fisa court during that
period, which, as
first revealed by the Guardian thanks to leaks from Edward Snowden, permitted the ongoing,
daily collection of practically all US phone records.
While the surveillance statistics report provides only limited detail, it reveals that under
a single order in 2013 pursuant to a 2008 law permitting NSA to obtain Americans' international
calls without individually specified warrants, some 89,138 "targets" had their data collected.
But those "targets" are not necessarily 89,138 people.
For the purposes of the relevant surveillance power, known as Section 702 of the Fisa Amendments
Act of 2008, a target could be "an individual person, a group or an organization composed of
multiple individuals or a foreign power," the report explained. Such targets are counted once
in the report although the NSA might be able to siphon data from "multiple communications facilities"
used by the target.
Nor did the NSA disclose how many times in 2013 it has warrantlessly searched those collected
communications for Americans' data, something intelligence officials have pledged to disclose
to Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon.
The controversial queries, dubbed colloquially the "backdoor search" by Wyden, received a drubbing
last week from
a House amendment to defund it, and next week, a government privacy board plans to release
the results of its investigation into the practice.Similarly, a new accounting of a kind
of nonjudicial subpoena for records used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, known as a
National Security Letter, declined to specify the number of Americans whose data was impacted.
Instead, the report revealed that the FBI issued 19,212 national security letters in 2013, entailing
38,832 "requests for information."
inthenews -> peacefulmilitant, 28 June 2014 2:23am
I don't believe that is accurate based on what I have read to date. Snowden made comments
that he had access to the content of email messages. Now, do they "archive" internal
email from within each federal agency or between agencies is an interesting question someone
should ask. Of course, the leaders of NSA are known pathological liars even under oath
so we'll never know... Now, if those messages hit the Internet you know the NSA has copies
archived as their accomplices help them in their mass surveillance activities.
I am so happy the Germans are not renewing their Verizon services. Now, they just need
to force the NSA to remove their fiber taps and vacate their facilities. Until we see more
action like this change will continue to move slowly.
PS I am considered a "risk" by The Guardian. Beware of what you read of mine...
unclepickles, 27 June 2014 8:14pm
Law enforcement ... use "Tag Readers". Big Bro looking 4U - no worries - Facial Recognition
will track you in real time w/an attached dossier on the "person of interest". All this
w/o probable cause! No judge needs to know. Suspected journalist about to break a major
story, enter them in a facial recognition database, track them in real time & eventually,
it'll lead law enforcement directly to their sources. No one, absolutely NO One should
believe a word the NSA's spits out.
This is all faux formalities to appease the public's concern of the de facto of the 4th
Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision moot.
http://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-how-the-government-can-still-get-your-digital-data
dubo6524, 27 June 2014 8:26pm
Reminder that The NSA often uses 2 or 3 "hops" in a query, so that "248" means 248
people AND the people they talked to AND the people THOSE people talked to
JCDavis -> dubo6524, 27 June 2014 9:11pm
Exactly. From their past behavior, everything they say can be assumed be a lie of gargantuan
proportions, and thus the true number of people they've investigated must be a million
times larger, not merely 89,000 times larger as this story suggests.
WalrusHat, 27 June 2014 9:38pm
Sure, but what else are they doing with that data? My guess is that it is being analyzed
by the DoD anonymously (meaning the data without a reference to whom it refers to) to game
the citizens.
Why are people voting against wars? How can we make them more war friendly? What can
we do to increase our budget and limit things like infrastructure and education, you know,
things that matter?
davidpear -> WalrusHat, 27 June 2014 10:13pm
what else are they doing with that data
Those things and also saving it for the future. That is how all totalitarian regimes
work. One day in the future they drag in all the "traitors" and make them confess to
their crimes.
hmorgansr, 27 June 2014 9:43pm
The NSA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KEEPING US SAFE. THE NSA IS PROTECTING THE "FOLKS" IN
WASHINGTON FROM THE PEOPLE.
spied_upon, 27 June 2014 10:12pm
Below is an excerpt from:
No Warrant, No Problem: How the Government Can Get Your Digital Data
by Theodoric Meyer
ProPublica, Today, 10:29 a.m.
In response to an inquiry by Sen. Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, Sprint
reported that it provided location data to U.S. law enforcement 67,000 times in 2012.
AT&T reported receiving 77,800 requests for location data in 2012. (AT&T also said that
it charges $100 to start tracking a phone and $25 a day to keep tracking it.)
hollyrood13, 27 June 2014 10:36pm
Sometimes I get so disgusted that I rant (to no one person in particular except my patient
wife) about the foolishness and stupidity of American citizens.
But scanning the above comments encourages one to suspect we're smarter than anybody
in the District of Disconnect thinks we are. Pretty cutting bunch of comments by some smart
readers.
Not one troll in the lineup. Yea for us.
IsaiahEarhart, 27 June 2014 10:45pm
It would be interesting to find out how many times the NSA has told the truth. I
have been following what these NSA officials say, and I can't remember any one of them telling
the truth about anything, ever.
Coinyer101, 27 June 2014 10:50pm
Their 'transparency reports' lack any credibility, because the NSA and FBI are habitual
liars....
Threlly, 28 June 2014 12:20am
Utter and complete red herring. The specific/non-specific data mining of mass data is
where they get their real 'intelligence' from. This is the same old smoke screen they reel
out every time.
They don't need private specific data about you, they can literally tell everything
about you from diverse data from email headers, mobile phone bills, utility records etc
etc.
They don't NEED to dig into the sort of records that require subpoenas.
The fact that it's the NSA bleating this tells you EVERYTHING you need to know.
Remember.
YOU are the enemy now.
You.
Your friends.
Your family.
Your children.
You have NO Rights, they exist only as smoke now.
Catori -> Shadi imipak, 28 June 2014 4:37am
Person A calls 5 people in a day. Those others also call 5 a day. Supposed you follow
the chain 10 connections.
5x5x5x5x5x5x5x5x5x5x5 = what ? Go do the math.
The interesting results would be where 1 person is called by more than 1 person in the
chain. The length of each call would be interesting individually AND if the calls were
all about the same length. A few things might be red flags.
I'm a software engineer. I've seen a single query that took days to run. Queries can be
incredibly complex.
None of this needs to invade your anonymity. There is absolutely NO reason to use
a name, when searching for certain behavior. Name is a terrible identifier - so many ways
to spell or abbreviate names. When you have a phone number it is SO superior for a search.
Only at the end, if behavior matches do you have any need for a name.
... ... ...
Hottentot, 28 June 2014 6:27am
This article is a nonsense and the NSA spin is a joke
The National Security Agency was interested in the phone data of fewer than 250 people
believed to be in the United States in 2013 yet further down it states law permitting NSA
to obtain Americans' international calls without individually specified warrants, some 89,138
"targets" had their data collected. But those "targets" are not necessarily 89,138 people.
they could be an individual person, a group or an organization composed of multiple individuals
or a foreign power,"
The NSA and its PR department might 'wish' to believe that people will accept whatever
lies they spin, and that people can't do mathematics, but they can, and trying to insult
peoples intelligence is not only unacceptable, it compounds the already strongly held views
of people, that, the NSA like GCHQ, has no credibility. All this nonsense about terrorism
is a cover for the NSA who can't, or won't, design a programme that targets 'specifics'
- it's like, throwing mud at the wall in the hope that something will stick..... unbelievable.
ByThePeople -> Hottentot, 28 June 2014 8:34am
Hey - Give em a break. They are not trying to insult our intelligence - you give them
too much credit - They are too fucking stupid to even know that their bullshit pack of lies
are not believable - and by the way, they are busy looking for Bush's WMD's and 'not seeing'
the perpetrators of 9/11 whom gather just outside their offices in the days before 9/11.
No, they are too fucking stupid to understand that their propaganda is shit and to understand
that none of them has any credibility to deliver any information that would be believed
anyway - legit or not.
Catori Shadi -> ByThePeople, 28 June 2014 8:06pm
"Able to" yes - interested in doing so, no. You just aren't that important. Sorry.
I've once worked for one of the top 3 credit card companies. I supported a software system
that identified recipients for "envelope stuffers" - special offers that came with your
monthly bill.
A merchant would work with the CC to identify, for example "anyone who visits my store,
but spends $50 a month or less. But who spent $500 or more in a 3-month spell in the rest
of the market sector".
The idea being for the merchant to entice bigger spenders into their own store, with
special offers. To do this, the CC company has a supercomputer - something like an SP2 back
then. They would churn through all of your spending history - so if you went on a business
trip without your wife & bought condoms when you arrived in the remote location, it was
in your spending history.
In all of that process not ONE pair of human eyes EVER saw any of the data - individually
you don't matter. The query would be run on the supercomputer, the target recipients would
be identified and the special offer would be included in the envelope and it was never seen
by human eyes.
When you mow the lawn, do you get down on hands & knees & look at individual blades of
grass - or do you set the blade height & just go for it ?
ByThePeople, 28 June 2014 8:55am
In all fairness - Many American's still believe the lies for War in Iraq and that
he NSA, CIA and FBI did not know about 9/11.
So - why not throw out bullshit numbers and figures, We The People don't even know what
took place 13 years ago...
shahidbuttar, 28 June 2014 1:00pm
Amie's comment is critical: the government is releasing only limited data, likely contrived
to downplay the extent of its unconstitutional surveillance. Don't forget that Clapper
(the head of the office that produced the report) has already been caught lying to Congress.
Why should anyone believe his latest round of self-serving comments? (crickets)
Expressed in an alternative hip-hop vernacular set to house music:
The government's watching you....and they lie about it, at every opportunity, sustained
abuses of every community....
Bush signed a secret presidential decree. Obama talked a big game, but presidentially
did everything he could to entrench the Bush legacy....
-- http://youtu.be/hciiZbJph1c
WSBthxgivin, 28 June 2014 2:27pm
The meta data conversation is the smoke screen, and obvious hog wash.
The abuses of power by this unchecked agency are what citizens should be concerned about.
Setting up fake websites to sow dissent in Cuba. Derailing climate conferences.
Listening in to the conversations of lawyers in international trade disputes.
johnwallis42, 29 June 2014 5:49am
You bought a cellphone with a GPS, Google knows a fuckton more about you than the
NSA, you live in a virtual prison already. They don't need to work that hard.
outfitter, 29 June 2014 1:33pm
A little overkill? The pernicious thing is that it is in the nature of bureaucracies
in general and spy agencies in particular to expand beyond reason unless there is effective
oversight. In the case of intelligence agencies it has proven impossible to control them.
Even if the law is changed they will continue on their merry way as they consider it
their duty to break the law to further what they consider noble ends. The only effective
way of reigning in agencies like NSA, that depend upon expensive hardware, is to cut their
budget, and that is also neigh on impossible while the public fears terrorism.
Edward Snowden has secured
his highest endorsement yet in the US when former vice-president
Al Gore described the leaking of top secret
intelligence documents as "an important service".
Asked if he regarded Snowden as a traitor or whistleblower, Gore veered away from the "traitor"
label. He refused to go as far as labelling him a whistleblower but signalled he viewed him
as being closer to that category than a traitor, saying: "What he revealed in the course of
violating important laws included violations of the US constitution that were way more serious
than the crimes he committed."
Snowden, the former CIA and National Security Agency computer specialist, leaked US and British
documents to the Guardian and Washington Post in June last year, starting a worldwide debate
on the balance between surveillance and privacy. His revelations have led to proposed changes
in legislation in the US and a backlash against government surveillance by major telecoms and
internet companies.
But he remains a polarizing figure in the US. An NBC poll a fortnight ago showed 24% backing
him and 34% disagreeing with his actions, with 40% having no opinion. Among the younger generation
there was more support, with 32% backing him and only 20% opposed, with 47% having no opinion.
Some members of Congress have welcomed the revelations but refuse to go as far as supporting
Snowden, who is wanted by the US and has sought asylum in Russia.
Gore, interviewed at the Southland technology conference in Nashville, Tennessee, was asked
if he viewed him as a whistleblower or a traitor. "I hear this question all the time. I'm like
most people: I don't put him in either one of those categories. But I'll be candid and give
you want you want. If you set up a spectrum. "
The interviewer interrupted: "How would you define it?"
Gore replied: "I would push it more away from the traitor side. And I will tell you why.
He clearly violated the law so you can't say OK, what he did is all right. It's not. But what
he revealed in the course of violating important laws included violations of the US constitution
that were way more serious than the crimes he committed.
"In the course of violating important law, he also provided an important service. OK. Because
we did need to know how far this has gone."
The documents released by Snowden showed massive government surveillance but also the extent
of co-operation between the government and the large telecoms and internet companies.
Gore called on the internet companies to work with the public to help draw up a "digital
Magna Carta" that provides protection of freedoms. "They need to pay attention to correcting
some of these gross abuses of individual privacy that are ongoing in the business sphere," he
said.
Snowden's hope of a return to the US is dependent on a change in a major shift in opinion
that would allow him to escape a lengthy prison sentence. His supporters will seize on Gore's
comments to help make the case that he is a whistleblower and should be allowed to return to
the US as a free man. Ben Wizner, Snowden's US-based lawyer, said: "Al Gore is quite obviously
right. Regrettably, the laws under which Snowden is being charged make no allowance for the
value of the information he disclosed. Whether the
NSA's activities violated the law or the
constitution would be irrelevant in a trial under the Espionage Act."
NOTaREALmerican, 10 June 2014 7:37pm
Now, if ONLY the patriotic constitution-loving freedom-loving Conservatives would get
as excited about protecting the 4th amendment as the 2nd, but - I know, I know - most Conservatives
are actually "Conservatives".
StewbyNOTaREALmerican, 10 June 2014 9:11pm
The lifelong republicans I know are excited about protecting both the 2nd and the 4th
amendment. It's the career politicians that want to seize more power for the federal government.
Mass surveillance is the opposite of conservative. Especially the NRA types because they
know that mass surveillance can easily create a backdoor gun registry, which is something
they've fought for years. I'm more shocked by the intellectually dishonest progressives
that were for civil liberties under Bush but now mass surveillance isn't a big deal anymore
under Obama.
They act more cult-like than objective, and sadly many of them are intelligent otherwise.
Because this surfaced under Obama there will be huge numbers of people that won't want to
denounce it in the future after publicly supporting it for fear of being a flip-flopper.
So, instead they'll prefer to justify it to themselves. The ethical death of a whole generation
of civil libertarians.
hary3hve -> Stewby, 10 June 2014 9:36pm
@Stewby your analysis is spot on. It illustrates why the Dem party is actually more harmful
to the stated priorities (excepting cultural/social issues) of the Left and liberalism than
the GOP has ever been or can be. If the GOP were doing these things there would be aggressive
pushback from the liberal Left but when the DEM party does them it becomes normalized and
acceptable to them.
NOTaREALmerican -> hary3hve, 10 June 2014 9:45pm
Re: there would be aggressive pushback
Good points. In fact, both the right and left are authoritarians. And neither will question
their leaders. The "Conservatives" are perfectly happy with authoritarian government when
it comes to social issues just as the "Liberals/Progressive" turn a blind eye when it comes
to authoritarian government like the NSA.
Most people love Big-Gov. It really comes down to a disagreement about male oriented
Big-Gov or female oriented Big-Gov.
Dee Dee ForteNOTaREALmerican, 10 June 2014 11:36pm
I live in Europe but often interact with US people. I clearly recall talking to one shortly
after President Obama was first elected. He was apoplectic with rage that the President
was about to change the Constitution to allow unlimited terms in Office.This was a University
educated mid 40's guy who got all his news from Fox. I listened to his bile for as long
as seemed polite, then made an excuse to go meet someone else!
SUNLITE -> NOTaREALmerican, 11 June 2014 12:02am
How about calling conservatives by their real name.....Whores for the 1%.......
Soulskill posted yesterday | from the
information-wants-to-be-free-and-private dept.
335 comments
Bruce66423 writes:
"Ebon Moglen Gives a comprehensive explanation of
how the NSA's surveillance operations are a threat to a functioning democracy, and why
there is a need for real change. There are interesting parallels to the Roman Empires: 'The
power of that Roman empire rested in its leaders' control of communications. ... The emperors
invented the posts to move couriers and messages at the fastest possible speed. Using that
infrastructure, with respect to everything that involved the administration of power, the
emperor made himself the best-informed person in the history of the world. That power eradicated
human freedom. "Remember," said Cicero to Marcellus in exile, "wherever you are, you are
equally within the power of the conqueror.'
Nowadays, 'Our military listeners have invaded the centre of an evolving net, where conscriptable
digital superbrains gather intelligence on the human race for purposes of bagatelle and
capitalism. In the US, the telecommunications companies have legal immunity for their complicity,
thus easing the way further.
The invasion of our net was secret, and we did not know that we should resist. But resistance
developed as a fifth column among the listeners themselves. Because of Snowden, we now know
that the listeners undertook to do what they repeatedly promised respectable expert opinion
they would never do. They always said they would not attempt to break the crypto that secures
the global financial system. That was false.'"
s.petry (762400) | yesterday | (#47101497)
Almost (2)
If the NSA only spied for military purposes on foreign governments, I would see your
point. The NSA spied on German citizens, not just their military. Since it's all "secret"
we really don't know a motive, but looking at how the police there shut down demonstrations
real time similar to how OWS was shut down in the US you should be questioning their handling
and use of the data. I could point to similar incidents in the UK, where again the NSA was
spying on citizens not just military with similar results.
Other reports have mentioned things like industrial espionage being done by the NSA.
Again, since it's all "secret" we only know what's been leaked, and what's been leaked is
their capabilities more than their actions. In other words, we don't know everything they
have been doing with all the data they collect.
This paints a rather eerie picture of what the NSA is really doing as an agency.
Sure, I'll defend the average agent who believes they are just going a job and defending
the USA. As a Veteran I defend soldiers with the same beliefs. The agency they work for
however, does not deserve the same defense when you consider a long series of known abuses.
fermion (181285) | yesterday | (#47101265)
Soviet Russian(not a joke) (4, Insightful)
If you think back 40-50, one of the primary criticism of Soviet Russia was that no one
in that country did any real work. In industry you sat around all day playing chess, and
the government most spent it's time surveilling itself and everyone else. While this was
an exaggeration, the point should be well taken. The purpose of a government is to govern,
and if too many resources are spent spying, if the stability is so strained that constant
monitoring of citizens is required, then that nation-state is not going to survive very
long. It is not only the expense, it is the waste of talent, the existence of meaningless
jobs. This later is really death to a country. If young people know they need no real education
because they can just chill in the military or hang out and drink vodka while spying on
other people, why would they bother to gain real skills?
Virtucon (127420) | yesterday | (#47101545)
Re:Soviet Russian(not a joke) (4, Insightful)
I think you'll find that the NSA is relatively efficient at what it does in terms of
its mission statement. That's the more chilling analogy here. 40 to 50 years ago it took
massive amounts of "feet on the street" to gather intelligence along with lots of time to
analyze the information. Now with wholesale wiretapping of all forms of communication there's
not much that our government can't learn about nearly every citizen in the country. By nearly
we have to think of kids who aren't on the Internet or have a cell phone yet. If you start
to tie together the communications surveillance with the amount of surveillance that goes
on from commercial entities and local law enforcement a profile on the behaviors and destinations
of every American is now at hand. Your license plates on your car are tracked, your credit
card/banking transactions tracked. Your travel is now tracked both by "chipped" passports
and airline itineraries. Even your transit pass is tracking you. We may have backed into
our Orwellian surveillance world in the name of easy shopping or "security" but that certainly
doesn't mean that we have to allow it to continue. That's the failure of our democracy right
now, we're failing to push our leadership to dismantle this system and to push for legislation
that would outlaw these wholesale collection processes in the first place.
blahplusplus (757119) | yesterday |
(#47101777)
Almost Nobody gets it even Snowden... (3, Interesting)
... this (mass surveillance) is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent
against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and
corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid
with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[youtube.com]
Look at the following graphs:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa... [ucsc.edu]
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa... [ucsc.edu]
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...
[ucsc.edu]
And then...
WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[youtube.com]
Free markets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[youtube.com]
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-I... [amazon.com]
"We now live in two Americas. One-now the minority-functions in a print-based, literate
world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other-the
majority-is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic.
To this majority-which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected-presidential
debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this "other
America," serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to
the margins of society.
In the tradition of Christopher Lasch's The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman's
Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture-attending
WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies-to
expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."
When a National Security Agency contractor revealed top-secret details this month on the
government's collection of Americans' phone and Internet records, one select group of intelligence
veterans breathed a sigh of relief.
Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials
who paved the way.
For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects
huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks
of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned
against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being
violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional
oversight committees and, finally, to the news media.
To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government
classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated
as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime.
Today, they feel vindicated.
Thomas Drake:
He's an American who has been exposed to some incredible information regarding the
deepest secrets of the United States government. And we are seeing the initial outlines
and contours of a very systemic, very broad, a Leviathan surveillance state and much of
it is in violation of the fundamental basis for our own country - in fact, the very reason
we even had our own American Revolution. And the Fourth Amendment for all intents and purposes
was revoked after 9/11. ...
Q: What did you learn from the document - the Verizon warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court - that Snowden leaked?
Drake:
It's an extraordinary order. I mean, it's the first time we've publicly seen an actual,
secret, surveillance-court order. I don't really want to call it "foreign intelligence"
(court) anymore, because I think it's just become a surveillance court, OK? And we are all
foreigners now. By virtue of that order, every single phone record that Verizon has is turned
over each and every day to NSA.
There is no probable cause. There is no indication of any kind of counterterrorism investigation
or operation. It's simply: "Give us the data." ...
There's really two other factors here in the order that you could get at. One is that
the FBI requesting the data. And two, the order directs Verizon to pass all that data to
NSA, not the FBI.
Binney:
But when it comes to these data, the massive data information collecting on U.S. citizens
and everything in the world they can, I guess the real problem comes with trust. That's
really the issue. The government is asking for us to trust them.
It's not just the trust that you have to have in the government. It's the trust you have
to have in the government employees, (that) they won't go in the database - they can see
if their wife is cheating with the neighbor or something like that. You have to have all
the trust of all the contractors who are parts of a contracting company who are looking
at maybe other competitive bids or other competitors outside their - in their same area
of business. And they might want to use that data for industrial intelligence gathering
and use that against other companies in other countries even. So they can even go into a
base and do some industrial espionage. So there is a lot of trust all around and the government,
most importantly, the government has no way to check anything that those people are doing.
At the outset of Glenn Greenwald's communications with the "anonymous leaker" later identified
as 29-year-old former NSA employee
Edward Snowden, Greenwald – a
journalist, blogger and former lawyer – and the film-maker Laura Poitras, with whom he is collaborating,
are told to use a PGP ("pretty good privacy")
encryption package. Only then will materials be sent to him since, as Snowden puts it, encryption
is "not just for spies and philanderers". Eventually Greenwald receives word that a Federal
Express package has been sent and will arrive in a couple of days. He doesn't know what it will
contain – a computer program or the secret and incriminating US government documents themselves
– but nothing comes on the scheduled day of delivery. FedEx says that the package is being held
in customs for "reasons unknown". Ten days later it is finally delivered. "I tore open the envelope
and found two USB thumb drives" and instructions for using the programs, Greenwald writes.
His account reminded me of the time, nearly a decade ago, when I was researching Britain's
road to war in Iraq, and went through a similar experience. I was waiting for an overnight FedEx
envelope to reach me in New York, sent from my London chambers; it contained materials that
might relate to deliberations between George Bush and Tony Blair (materials of the kind that
seem to be holding up the Chilcot inquiry).
A day passed, then another, then two more. Eventually, I was told I could pick up the envelope
at a FedEx office, but warned that it had been tampered with, which turned out to something
of an understatement: there was no envelope for me to tear open, as the tearing had already
occurred and all the contents had been removed. FedEx offered no explanation.
As Greenwald notes, experiences such as this, which signal that you may be being watched,
can have a chilling effect, but you just find other ways to carry on. FedEx (and its like) are
avoided, and steps are taken to make sure that anything significant or sensitive is communicated
by other means. In any event, and no doubt like many others, I proceed on the basis that all
my communications – personal and professional – are capable of being monitored by numerous governments,
including my own. Whether they are is another matter, as is the question of what happens with
material obtained by such surveillance – a point that this book touches on but never really
addresses. Greenwald's argument is that it's not so much what happens with the material that
matters, but the mere fact of its being gathered. Even so, his point is a powerful one.
This is the great importance of the astonishing revelations made by Snowden, as facilitated
by Greenwald and Poitras, with help from various news media, including the Guardian. Not only
does it confirm what many have suspected – that surveillance is happening – but it also makes
clear that it's happening on an almost unimaginably vast scale. One might have expected a certain
targeting of individuals and groups, but we now know that data is hovered up indiscriminately.
We have learned that over the last decade the NSA has collected records on every phone call
made by every American (it gathers the who, what and when of the calls, known as metadata, but
not the content), as well as email data. We have learned that this happens with the cooperation
of the private sector, with all that implies for their future as consorts in global surveillance.
We have learned, too, that the NSA reviews the contents of the emails and internet communications
of people outside the US, and has tapped the phones of foreign leaders (such
as German chancellor Angel Merkel), and that it works with foreign intelligence services
(including
Britain's GCHQ), so as to be able to get around domestic legal difficulties. Our suspicions
have been confirmed that the use of global surveillance is not limited to the "war on terror",
but is marshalled towards the diplomatic and even economic advantage of the US, a point Greenwald
teases out using the PowerPoint materials relied on by the agencies themselves. Such actions
have been made possible thanks to creative and dodgy interpretations of legislation (not least
the Patriot Act implemented just after 9/11). These activities began under President Bush, and
they have been taken forward by President Obama. It would be a generous understatement to refer
to British "cooperation" in these matters, although Greenwald's intended audience seems to be
mostly in the US, and he goes light on the British until it comes to the treatment of his partner,
David Miranda, who was detained in the UK under anti-terror legislation.
When the revelations first came out, in the summer of 2013, Snowden explained that he "had
the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications". That
meant "anyone's communications at any time", he added, justifying the public disclosure on the
grounds that this "power to change people's fates" was "a serious violation of the law". Snowden's
actions, and the claims he has made, have catalysed an important debate in the US, within Congress
(where views have not necessarily followed party lines) and among academics and commentators.
Views are polarised among reasonable individuals, such as
New Yorker legal writer Jeff Toobin ("no proof of any systematic, deliberate violations
of law"), and the
New York Review of Books's David Cole ("secret and legally dubious activities at home and
abroad"), and in the US federal courts. In Britain, by contrast, the debate has been more limited,
with most newspapers avoiding serious engagement and leaving the Guardian to address
the detail, scale and significance
of the revelations. Media enterprises that one might have expected to rail at the powers
of Big Government have remained conspicuously restrained – behaviour that is likely, over the
long term, to increase the power of the surveillance state over that of the individual.
With the arrival
of secret courts in Britain, drawing on the experience of the US, it feels as if we may
be at a tipping point. Such reluctance on the part of our fourth estate has given the UK parliament
a relatively free rein, leaving the Intelligence and Security Committee to plod along, a somewhat
pitiful contrast to its US counterparts.
The big issue at stake here is privacy, and the relationship between the individual and the
state, and it goes far beyond issues of legality (although Snowden's fear of arrest, and perhaps
also Greenwald's, seems rather real). It is in the nature of government that information will
be collected, and that some of it should remain confidential. "Privacy is a core condition of
being a free person," Greenwald rightly proclaims, allowing us a realm "where we can act, think,
speak, write, experiment and choose how to be away from the judgmental eyes of others".
Snowden's revelations challenge us to reflect on the ideal balance between the power of the
state to know and the right of the individual to go about her or his business unencumbered,
and this in turn raises fundamental questions about the power of the media, on which Greenwald
has strong views, usually (but not always) fairly articulated. He makes the case for Snowden,
and it's a compelling one. One concern with
WikiLeaks acting independently was
the apparently random nature of its disclosures, without any obvious filtering on the basis
of public interest or the possible exposure to risk of certain individuals. What is striking
about this story, and the complex interplay between Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras and the Guardian,
is that the approach was different, as the justification for the leaks seems to have been at
the forefront of all their minds. In his recent book
Secrets and Leaks Rahul Sagar identified a set of necessary conditions for leaks.
Is there clear evidence of abuse of authority? Will the release threaten public safety? Is the
scale of the release limited? Many people, though not all, see these as having been met in the
Snowden case.
Britain needs a proper debate about the power of the state to collect information of the
kind that Snowden has told us about, including its purpose and limits. The technological revolution
of the past two decades has left UK law stranded, with parliament seemingly unable (and perhaps
unwilling) to get a proper grip on the legal framework that is needed to restrain our political
governors and the intelligence services, not least in their dance with the US. "The greatest
threat is that we shall become like those who seek to destroy us", the legendary US diplomat
George Kennan warned in 1947. In response, revelations can be made, Greenwald's book published,
and a
Pulitzer prize awarded. Long may it go on.
• Philippe Sands QC is professor of law at University College London. To order No Place
to Hide for Ł15 with free UK p&p call Guardian book service on 0330 333 6846 or go to
guardianbookshop.co.uk
No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State
by Glenn Greenwald
Tell us what you think:
Star-rate and review this
book
Imlessbiasedthanyou2, 23 May 2014 8:41am
Recommend: 81
Ed Snowden needs to be pardoned.
Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian have been the only source for this information in the
UK, which is a disgusting state is affairs. The timidity of our media is striking, embarrassing
and scary.
Information needs to be collected by security agencies within reason. Indiscriminate
harvesting is information corrupts democracy indescribably.
Incumbent powers can, and will, use private information to quell legitimate protest and
debate, and protect their own interests at the expense of justice for their own citizens,
and the innocent citizens of foreign countries. They will use it to bribe public servants
and corrupt democracy.
Innocent information can still be used against you. It is a failure of intellect and
imagination to doubt this, and proclaim the old, untrue mantra, "nothing to hide, nothing
to fear".
This cannot be disputed, and so those who continue to defend the actions of our governments
are either blind, ignorant or working in tandem.
Thank you Ed Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian.
Keep this story alive. It's almost the only one that matters.
mirageseekr, 23 May 2014 11:45am
While I agree that personal privacy is important and needed I think the bigger concern
is what happens to democracy when people in authority can be blackmailed. The important
thing about Snowden was that he confirmed what Tice and Binney have been saying all along
and just lacked the actual evidence.
What I see with some of the rulings from the courts and laws from congress is puppets
on a string. They know their argument fails to hold water and yet the feverishly stand
by and defend it. The only reasonable answer for that is someone has the goods on them and
is using it, just as Russ Tice has been saying for years. So the major question and one
I hope Snowden and Greenwald have the answer to is, who is the puppet master?
Our societies have only the charade of democracy. Now the proverbial curtain has been
pulled back and we must look to see the truth. Tice has said he saw the orders for surveillance
of Obama and Supreme court justices as well as top brass. So who is it exactly that this
very expensive system paid for by our tax dollars is used for. We know the "terrorism" is
a lie or possibly a distraction for workers they may worry about having a conscious. They
claim it is not for industrial espionage, but I am willing to bet some people have made
lots of money from having access to information that was stolen. To me the tin foil hat
club had it right all along. The people calling the shots are the Council on Foreign Relations,
The Trilateral Commission, and Bilderbergs. And if that is true then we have a few global
elite of un-elected people determining economies, wars, policy for us all and doing it in
violation of sovereignty laws. I wish The Guardian would report more on the military state
the USA has become, daily the police beat and kill people here. The DHS has been loading
up on ammunition that is not used for target ranges and is against the Geneva convention,
the TSA, just ordered weapons and ammunition. The State Department just got a few tons of
explosives even the post office has a SWAT team. We have allowed them to build a standing
army within our country in direct violation of our constitution. The FEMA camps are up and
running and NDAA ensures you can be quietly taken away in the night with absolutely no rights
and no charges and even gives them the right to kill Americans. This is not a partisan issue,
the bill passed 84-15. So how much more will it take for Americans to realize that the only
difference between the US right now and Nazi Germany is that they haven't started loading
the trains yet. The US also learned from the Germans mistakes, they will most likely not
go house to house with weapons at first. It will be some false flag to make the population
willingly go. Maybe it will be like the drills they have had (one in Denver) where they
took the schoolchildren to the football arena for a FEMA/DHS "drill" except they forgot
to make any mention to the parents about it. The puppet masters need to be exposed now,
there is not much more time to wait to see how this is going to work out.
MiltonWiltmellow, 23 May 2014 11:48am
Recommend: 52
Snowden's revelations challenge us to reflect on the ideal balance between the power
of the state to know and the right of the individual to go about her or his business unencumbered,
and this in turn raises fundamental questions about the power of the media, on which Greenwald
has strong views, usually (but not always) fairly articulated.
These sorts of understatements represent a sort of passive acceptance. (e.g., "Let's
debate about the tigers dragging our children to the jungle where it devours them. Tiger's
have legitimate needs too. Maybe if we stake goats, the tigers will devour the goats instead
of our children ... " )
The entire relationship between State and individual changes when the State takes
it upon itself to monitor the everyday activities of its citizens.
This isn't an academic question which august authorities like yourself can debate among
themselves for the next ten or twenty years.
This is a fucking tiger in the nursery.
Either the citizen has basic human rights (the right to freely interact with others)
or the citizen turns into a subject -- a potential threat to State security and thus a suspect.
The question isn't "how much secret surveillance should be allowed" but rather "how can
this secret surveillance be stopped?
AhBrightWings -> MiltonWiltmellow, 23 May 2014 12:41pm
Brilliant Milton. Couldn't agree more, and love your metaphor. Just because it's crouched
under the dust-ruffle doesn't mean it isn't there. If you've watched footage of tigers hunting,
they often freeze for long periods of time to lull their prey into a fall sense of well-being.
As you said so well: This is a fucking tiger in the nursery.
LostintheUSMiltonWiltmellow, 23 May 2014 1:26pm
Recommend: 16
And it is not just about reading our emails, etc. Or listening into phone calls. I mentioned
an obscure book to my husband (in the same room) that has been out of print for 34 years
one day while working on my computer and a short while later there was an ad for that book
that popped up on gmail.
Think about that.
And NONE of this is about "protecting" us. The Boston Marathon bombers were all over
the radar for their previous activities and the NSA was paying them no mind. This web is
to protect the oligarchy from us peasants. We are living in 17th century France...the
aristocracy pay no taxes and we are being taxed and worked to death.
Levi Genes -> LostintheUS, 24 May 2014 11:44am
The Boston Marathon bombers were all over the radar for their previous activities
and the NSA was paying them no mind. This web is to protect the oligarchy from us peasants.
It's much more violently proactive than simple 'protections' from potential opposition.
The reason they appear now on the 'radar' is because the so-called Boston 'bombers' were
deeply run by the FBI for the same nefarious reasons as are all other patsies in the parade
of US false flag operations: deflection from public investigation identifying the actual
terrorist perpetrators / plausible deniability for the public to bite on to facilitate the
desired effect of implemented programs of public terror. The evidence of state sponsored
terror is there if one chooses to look.
The recent, violent murder in Florida of an associate / witness to that FBI operation
by an FBI agent / interrogator, tasked with insuring that associate / witness's compliance
to the prescriptive, government narrative of the Boston event as force fed to the public
by compliant / co-opted mass media, is but yet another thinly but effectively veiled, social
conditioning manipulation of public consciousness reinforcing the enabling myth of just
who is the actual threat to public peace and safety.
Boston was an exercise in social conditioning to martial law where no civil rights exist.
They shut the city down in contrived pretext and stormed through whatever private domain
they chose as a show of force in exercise of police state power over all constitutionally
based constraints. All on a desperate, audacious and unthinkable lie.
You will do exactly what you're told to do, when you're told to do it, by heavily
armed masked men in black, storming through your house without your invitation, ostensibly
in pursuit of and protecting you from the terrible phantoms created by their masters.
Bagdad, Boston, London, Kiev, no matter. Same game of violent control from the same power
cabal while draining the hard earned wealth and civil power of the masses by the same boom/
bust / state terrorist means. All of it, an horrific extension of covert enablement by forced
public pacification to Operation Gladio and its drive to global dominion.
NATO / NWO intent is defined by its break-away elitist culture of absolute authoritarianism
by absolute systemic corruption in absolute secrecy. Snowden and his journalist associates
are providing a glimpse of its all encompassing scope. Our individual response, or lack
thereof, will determine our fate as either citizens with rights based in moral principles
and economic equity, or as mere commodities for use as needed by hidden powers.
A stark choice, as the presumptive enemies of the state that we in fact are.
guest88888epinoa, 24 May 2014 3:29am
Baubles handed out - nothing changed.
Agreed. Ultimately, despite their good intentions, I feel as though both Greenwald and
Snowden aren't pushing the case against dragnet surveillance hard enough. We don't need
a debate. This is fascism pure and simple, and they are spying on us because they fear the
day that we revolt against their putrid austerity and the general failure of capitalism.
The Grauniad of course possesses no perspective whatsoever. Seriously Mr. Sands, we need
a debate? You find out the majority of the world is being spied on and violated, and you
are actually think that a few cosmetic changes will make a difference?
There will be no debate, and you know it. But I suppose that while you are wealthy
and safe from economic deprivation, who cares if the NSA tramples on the freedoms of common
people, all in defense of the ultra-rich, right?
KilgoreTrout2012, 23 May 2014 12:14pm
"NSA has collected records on every phone call made by every American (it gathers
the who, what and when of the calls, known as metadata, but not the content), as well as
email data."
I don't buy it's just metadata, since the US and are allies have the technology to do
so, the content is also being "saved". Most likely US "content" is collected in Great Britain
to give the NSA plausible deniability that they are not collecting content. And the US probably
has Great Britain's "content".
The NSA may not have the technology to truly read all that data today but someday it
will all be collated, analyzed, and used to put each citizen into national security classifications.
Your travel, jobs prospects, etc. will be limited based on where you fall in their assessments.
guest88888 -> KilgoreTrout2012, 24 May 2014 3:34am
I don't buy it's just metadata,
Of course I agree with you sentiment that the US and its cronies are lying through their
teeth about everything, but I want to point out that metadata collection is far more intrusive
than just regular wiretapping.
Greenwald gave a great example. To paraphrase:
If I call an AIDS clinic, and you monitor the content of my call, I may never bring up
the actual disease in most of my conversations. I might say, let's meet at this time, or
book an appointment, or make small talk etc.
But, if you have the metadata, you can know that I've been calling an AIDS clinic repeatedly.
You can know where I'm calling from. You can find out where I've been getting meds (from
the pharmacy).
In short, you can rapidly figure out if I have AIDS, what I'm doing about it, even how
I may have got it. Much easier with metadata than simple wire-tappping.
Not that much analysis needed, since you need much less data.
AhBrightWings, 23 May 2014 12:35pm
Recommend: 16
Not sure I agree that the debate has been "more limited" in Great Britain. The Guardian
is, after all, a British publication and it has had ten times (conservatively) more coverage
than any other journal I know of, and continued congratulations for doing so.
The problem in the US is that we can't get any traction on the revelations that kicks
over into judicial action to end this crime spree. Congress is ossified, the populace is
mummified, and so we march on, becoming the United States of Zombieland, where the only
signs of sentient life are in the MIC and its many tentacles and claws.
Snowden's sacrifice and Greenwald's work only have value if people wake up and use what
we've learned. The mystery is what we are all waiting for. The trajectory from UPS hold-ups
to being held-up in a cell is shorter--when things truly take a dire turn (and we may get
lucky and they may not, I fully concede that)--than many want to concede. The rise of every
despot and tyrant has illustrated that arc well. Why do we think we'll be the exception
to that pattern?
Our exceptionalism appears to have blinded us in more ways than one.
Theodore McIntire, 23 May 2014 12:54pm
In addition to revealing how invasive and law/truth twisting big governments / organizations
(of any orientation and denomination) are likely to behave, the Snowden revelations
also showed how much the media and public are/were disengaged from reality and blindly trusting
of big governments / organizations.
Except for those poor souls who live in fear or live off the fear of others... They are
very afraid and angry about the Snowden revelations and any other disruptions to their fear
based animal herd behavior.
CraigSummers, 23 May 2014 1:32pm
Mr. Sands
I find it interesting that you don't mention even once in your review the potential ramifications
of compromising US intelligence. This is an extremely important consideration in the debate
(at least to some concerned citizens). In addition, the released information goes far beyond
civil liberties in many instances. One can certainly question the motives of Greenwald.
Greenwald has a body of written work from Salon, the Guardian and others which indicate
he was not motivated entirely by a debate about "privacy" and civil liberties.
The release of information that the NSA spied on universities in Hong Kong coincided
with Snowden's arrival in the special administrative region of the People's Republic of
China. This was hardly a coincidence - and shows the level of planning used by Snowden before
illegally stealing tens of thousands of top secret documents.
".......The big issue at stake here is privacy, and the relationship between the individual
and the state, and it goes far beyond issues of legality (although Snowden's fear of arrest.......seems
rather real)...."
Jesus, ya think?
Leondeinos -> CraigSummers, 23 May 2014 4:26pm
The ramifications are simply that the NSA has been caught in its full incompetence and
arrogance. Snowden did the world a great favor. Greenwald's book is a good read that does
expose and explore those ramifications for the world.
The version of the Defense Intelligence Agency's assessment of damage done by Edward
Snowden's leaks released by the US (here on the Guardian website) contains no information
about the potential ramifications of compromising US intelligence. This "redacted" version
consists 12 pages of blanks out of a total of 39 pages in the original. What you see is
what you get. A year after Snowden's revelations, it is a pathetic, contemptible defence
of a vast waste of money, people, and diplomatic reputation by the US government.
May 16, 2014 | Slashdot
timothy
jfruh (300774) writes "The EFF has released
its
annual "Who Has Your Back" report, which uses publicly available records to see which
web companies do the most to resist government demands for your personal data, by requiring
warrants and being transparent about requests received.
Social media giants Facebook and Twitter scored quite well; Snapchat was at the bottom
of the list, and Amazon and AT&T didn't do much better."Here's
the report itself.
russotto (537200)
#1 rats (Score:5, Informative)
Banks. They rat you out to the government in every which way. Any given transaction is
sent to the DEA and IRS just for starters. And of course the NSA gets everything by hook
or by crook.
kheldan
Re:2014: Trusting anyone online, ever. (Score:4, Informative)
Of the few people who have commented on my original comment, I decided to reply to yours
since you're touching on the most points I'd additionally like to cover anyway.
Yes, the real problem is that almost nobody will listen -- but my theory is that of that
group of people who won't listen, they break down into people who don't understand, or care,
or have been indoctrinated to not care, that their personal privacy is actually something
of value to them, and once it's gone, it's gone, and it may not be possible to get it back.
I think that the younger the person we're talking about, the less they care, and what's
worse, they really think that anyone who does value and protect their privacy 'has something
to hide', i.e. they think those people are Bad People who are committing crimes or something.
I blame corporate brainwashing and perhaps government propaganda for this attitude; these
younger people will grow up into a world where the idea of not sharing more-or-less every
moment of their waking lives with the world is completely foreign to them, and that if you
don't share everything, there's something wrong with you. Older people remember a world
where individual privacy was something that every healthy person wanted, and was entitled
to as a human being -- and because of this attitude, younger people say 'well, they're old,
they don't understand' and any warnings about privacy being violated is ignored.
So far as planning to discontinue usage of your debit card (and presumably go cash-only)?
Hate to tell you, but the situation has deteriorated to the point where if you do at some
point have your financial paper trail taper off to almost nothing, you'll draw the attention
of the government, which will assume you're up to no good and will start scrutinizing you.
Then when they see you online footprint is also next to nothing, they'll be nearly convinced
you're up to some sort of criminal activities, and you very well might be surveilled and
profiled. If you happen to be in the wrong place(s) at the right time, you may be implicated
in something you have absolutely nothing to do with, but since their 'profile' of you will
seem to indicate to them that you're hiding something (because you're not one of the bleeting
sheep they've carefully indoctrinated to be that way) it won't matter what you say to them
or can prove. Welcome to the Dystopia, friend. "I do not plan on ever being a threat", you
said at the end of your comment; I'm sorry, but in the end, as I said above, it won't matter,
if you happen to get caught in one of their drag-nets.
I do sympathize with you, and hopefully one decade things will turn around, but until
then, I actually recommend you 'hide in plain sight' because to do too much to erase yourself,
ironically, will just draw attention.
The question asked by the computer is always Are you sure you want to delete this?, never
Are you sure you want to save this?, or even Are you Sure you want
to write this?
Overland literary
journal
What is also tritely, exhaustingly ironic, in the context of the NSA revelations and every
political thriller since Enemy of the State, is that users of social media effectively
write their own surveillance reports. 'Subject got up and consumed hearty organic breakfast.'
'Subject expressed unsavoury political views after reading article in the morning's paper.'
Tweet-length entries in a drab chronicle of life beyond the cyber-curtain. And on top of
that, we secret-police one another. 'I remember that thing you said two years ago, in fact,
I have kept a record of it.' It's all filed in a myriad archives, and yours and mine can be
just as sinister as those that belong to the NSA, Google or Facebook.
You'll recall what happened with Facebook. For years we all posted on it as it if weren't
an archive, because it wasn't: there was no timeline nor search function.
Then came
Timeline, which made it possible to browse your life as you spent it on Facebook, unless
you bothered to go back and delete large chunks of it in a brief time window after the introduction
of the new future. This put users in front of two equally unpleasant options: revise and
self-censor, or have your own barely authorised biography suddenly published under the imprint
of Mark Zuckerberg. With a casual insult added to the injury: the implication by a host of commentators
and Zuckerberg himself that you should have known all along that it would come to this.
When the time came, I didn't revise, I didn't self-censor. I told myself that it was a personal
choice, that it had nothing to do with digital technology abhorring a vacuum. The question asked
by the computer is always Are you sure you want to delete this?, never Are you sure
you want to save this?, or even Are you Sure you want to write this? That's what
makes the image of the self-deleting paragraph so haunting. It's a perverse inversion of how
things are supposed to work. Deleting information should always and only be something that happens
by accident, never on purpose, not even the purpose of an adversary. Even our enemies should
want us to keep writing more and more things, the better to surveil us with.
Giovanni Tiso is an Italian writer and translator based in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In 2006
he completed a PhD at Wellington's Victoria University
on the relationship
between memory and technology. He also blogs at
Bat, Bean, Beam and tweets as
@gtiso.
The US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden has warned that entire populations, rather
than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance.
"It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual
suspicion of wrongdoing," he said. "It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what
you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love."
Snowden made his comments in a short video that was played before a debate on the proposition
that surveillance today is a euphemism for mass surveillance, in Toronto, Canada.
ellatynemouth
The surveillance state exists to monitor dissent. That's what it's for.
All our comments on this site are being logged, everyone who is participating on this
thread is having their emails, calls, texts and online activity monitored. GCHQ and the
NSA know most of us are not not terrorists.
They are interested in the enemies of the ruling class: thinkers, dissenters, trade
unionists, strikers, intellectuals, writers, teachers etc, anyone with a brain who criticises
the status quo. They are terrified the working class will mobilise. Their best weapon
is surveillance. It's totally political.
SinisterLord -> ellatynemouth
Everything we do online is monitored. First they collect it. All of it. After that
they can dissect and analyse at their leisure.
This is not about Spooks-style races against time to catch terrorists, it's about having
the capability to build dossiers on people. Even the Huff post now insists on facebook verification
before users are allowed to post. It's a now a known fact, thanks to Snowden that some of
the commentators on here are just GCHQ shills paid to 'nudge the debate'..
See:-
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-snowden-doc-reveals-how-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-manipulate-deceive-destroy-reputations.shtml
And it's working! Why? Because unlike the US and rest of the democratic world, no one
over here seems to actually care.
ByThePeople -> franklin100
"There is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation (United States of America)
if our traditions do not survive with it.
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be
seized upon by those anxious to expand it's meaning to the very limits of official censorship
and concealment.
That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it's in my control."
- Quote from JFK on April 27, 1961 - Assassinated November 22, 1963
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1N0Pm0uW3Y
HARPhilby
This total surveillance society is set up in anticipation of the coming social unrest.
Longwoodsy -> HARPhilby
It's more to do with maintaining control in an abusive relationship.
wildingb
If the entire population is under surveillance there is no method of analyzing that data.
As an example, one big university produces millions of emails a day, how earth could anyone
make sense of that data. Even if they look for 'buzzwords' they would be overloaded with
crap from the guardian comment section.
Obviously, to get money from the government, the contractors (like Snowden) sell their
techniques as effective. But in reality these techniques cannot work and are a total waste
of resources. My only concern is this waste, not my privacy.
WurzelGummidge
My personal assumption has always been that internet use and email has always been monitored
by either government, the email providor,broadband providor etc.because nothing in life
is free and information is valuable for these massive companies.
Having said that I am very grateful for Snowdon bringing this information to everyones
attention because with little awareness and lack of control there potentially could have
been some pretty nasty and petty invasions into people's privacy.
MakeBeerNotWar -> villas1
- Dershowitz is a double scumbag as he for years has pushed for the pardon of American
traitor Jonathan Pollard whom he feels is so much better a human being than Snowden because
he spied on the US for it's ally Israel. lol - the "ally" that did it's best to sink the
USS Liberty. I wish Dershowitz had been aboard Liberty that day in 1967 as his *American*
countrymen fought for their lives under attack by our "ally" and held his dying *countrymen*
in his arms.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA
Pyrrho San Pellegrino
What a true champion of the people. He's crystalized the awareness of people that they're
being spied on en masse. This ties in with the one-world gov agenda. The ultimate vision
is to have us all spied on, because people will be basically worker ants. And only certain
types of people will be able to climb the ladder in that one-world setup. It will be an
ethnoreligious hierarchy. No ascension is possible in that world for people outside of the
supremacist alpha controller group, except in terms of how good a slave that ant is. The
better slave you are, the more butt-kissing you do, the more you can get closer to the power
nexus. It's a true satanic setup. I'm sure this sounds all far-fetched and surreal, but
it's here already; it's just creeping and lurking and inching ever more close to total domination,
when it will more clearly show itself on the surface. But by that time everyone will be
totally helpless to resist. Tyranny is in the future for humanity. One of the few obstacles
to this is their worker ants going public and revealing the plans. That's why they're terrified
of people like Snowden. They cannot have any more Snowdens, which is why they will go so
far as waging proxy war on Russia. But Snowdens --- people who have the free, rebellious
human spirit --- are man's
ZeroNada7even -> Pyrrho San Pellegrino
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
- Goethe
friztofratzo -> Pyrrho San Pellegrino
The sad truth is most of us couldn't care less, we already LOVE Big Brother.
gothiquegmail
If the NSA is paranoid about surveillance , it's not to protect you from terrorists.
Its for 3 simple reasons:
- Protect themselves from public uprising
- Serve and help US corporations
- Means of coercion, manipulation, corruption in politics home and abroad.
MadWorld
Quote: Everyone is under surveillance now
The only one good thing about that is the NSA,GHQ and security services know just how
much they are justifiably reviled for their abuse of power in spying on untold millions
of innocent people.
Bolshiepamphleteer -> MadWorld
Are they bovvered ?
icurahuman2 -> Bolshiepamphleteer
Are they bovvered ?
That everyone now knows? You bet they're "bovvered"! No-one trusts them, them being the
NSA/GCHQ etc cabal, they're families certainly don't, or their neighbours, nor do their
co-workers who are now all potential whistleblowers or informants. I wouldn't be surprised
to see some "go postal" under the stress of it all. Any social standing they might have
had before has detriorated by a long ways, I bet they don't get invited to as many backyard
BBQ's as they used to.
Flagellum
Edward Snowden is a hero and the defenders of the secret state are everywhere. Secret
State makes representation and democracy meaningless.
colddebtmountain
No one can prevent terrorism when a state uses it as a weapon against its own people.
When a state uses terror it is fearful of all those who have not pledged allegiance, who
are not conscripts, who are not mercenaries. The state then claims it understands terror
and how it works, but, of course, it never sees the bully coming unless it really wants
to. If we are being left alone then we must have a use to the state and that is such a horrible
thought.
spineynorman
The huge problem we now have is the complacency of most people regarding this problem.
As a teacher, I was shocked when My class of 17 Year-olds said they didn't mind the NSA
having access to their Facebook page but they found the idea of their parents having access
to it intolerable. So basically, they don't mind hundreds of strange adults in a foreign
country having access, but do mind allowing the people who love and care for them most to
have access.
The public need to have their consciousness raised. The is a ticking bomb...
jsane
On the plus side, at least MI5 have a complete list of UKIP and BNP sympathisers
oppons -> jsane
On the plus side?
Do you really think the security services consider data from ukip and bnp websites and
forums a bonus, or even important?
In what situation do you think in GCHQ they are going to say 'Phew, disaster averted
guys, by some miracle we managed to successfully hack the ukip and bnp servers, the Gods
must be looking down on us'
Nope, cant envisage that ever being considered a plus side, but what I can see is some
weak attempt by you at implying ukip and bnp would having something to fear from mi15, nice
try 4/10
Mellomel
That Charlie Bauer 2013 magazine article.
So the truth is finally out - we're all being watched. Some time ago I covered online
identities including shagsites like Grindr, but the very notion of this most recent internet
profiling is making me feel a bit queezy. Either way, I can't help thinking that all this
Ed Snowden stuff is really just the tip of the slippery iceberg.
All this surveillance makes me wonder how they are ever going to get us to behave ourselves.
We're all free and well out of our closets and we all know our rights. And we're not doing
anything illegal, are we? What we do in bed is (now) our own business as long as it doesn't
constitute any form of involuntary force over another. Correct? And we can also perve away
across the internet - because we see this as free information- and delude ourselves that
we are still operating within the law. Even if we don't know what the law is.
Most people I talk to about my concerns tell me they have nothing to hide, 'Whoever they
are, they can't spy on everything we get up to online. Can they?'
There are also those of us who say 'they can look at whatever they want – I'm not hiding
anything or breaking any laws…' This is where we come unstuck.
It was Michel Foucault who came up with the idea of surveillance which he based on old
fashioned prisons called Panopticons. In the centre of these prisons was an observation
tower with slit windows where the guards would sit. In a circle around these were the prison
cells with railings on both sides so the guards could see through each cell at every prisoner.
But here was the trick - the prisoners couldn't tell if they were being observed or not
because they couldn't see through the slits in the tower at the guards. What the prisoners
did, because they didn't know if they were being watched, was regulate their own behavior.
In other words, they started to 'behave' themselves. This meant the job was done – and
cheaply too because sometimes the central turrets had no guards inside but the prisoners
didn't know that and so they behaved themselves.
This is becoming the same way with the internet but they can't afford to police us anymore
so they profile us instead – building up a contrived image of who we are via every activity
we make on the internet, text, phone, Facebook, Grindr…
So do we have to 'Behave' ourselves because they may be looking? It's actually gone beyond
that. We have to regulate our behavior now because Ed Snowden informed us that they can
go back at any point and put together a case based on hearsay from our own digital history.
And we will not be able to defend this because they will carry all the so-called 'evidence'.
Whenever you complain about a politician shafting the economy or Murdoch using wealth
to cover everything up, just remember that information is also designed to make you lose
all faith in any system of order. So that when if it were all to break down, in that good
old colonial way, the powers that be will stomp in with a new moral treaty in hand in order
to 'protect' us from ourselves.
Profiling is not only about 'Targeting' advertising at you via your online searches.
They now know your all your sexual peccadillos by what porn you view – even how long it
take for you to orgasm as a result - Is that personal enough for you?
As for 'having nothing to hide', your personal information may seem innocuous now,
but think about some idiot invested with power at GCHQ compiling their tailored choice of
profile based on carefully selected 'real events' from your online life. What about
that time you and a mate stumbled on the 'How to make a nail bomb' website when you were
drunk or having a disagreement. Or that time when you typed 'Sexy boys' into Google search
when you really should have tapped in 'Sexy men'.
All of this - as well as what you bought at the Tesco Metro yesterday - and your most
recent STD information, is currently on a chip the size of your little toenail at a storage
facility in Fuckhampton, Pennsylvania. And it's not what you are doing now in your temporarily
emancipated lives but what can be held against you from your digital past if someone decides
you've suddenly stepped out of line. And they wont be favorable either. Even if you believe
yourself to have a moral compass, they can shift the polarity of your identity to make you
appear to be Josef Fritzl if they so desire.
What will happen is that we will enter a closet far colder than the one we've just broken
out of. Of course we'll all be equal - but we'll all be stuck in there together.
Relax - none of this is actually real. It's only a profile of you that does not exist
yet and will only ever really be a fragmented case in a virtual court of law.
charliebauerphd.blogspot.com
StixxZadinia
Not that I agree with it, but I think people completely overestimate the ability for
a spy agency to process all that data in a meaningful way...
Pyrrho San Pellegrino -> tixxZadinia
That's what the 3rd party contractors are for, like Booz Hamilton. Shift the grunt processing
work to the private sector.
jsane -> StixxZadinia
That misses the point. Without Snowden's revelations the establishment would have denied
outright the scale of data collection. Anyone who says "I'm fine about this" is entitled
to their opinion. But it's clearly illegal/unconstitutional and that is why it was covered
up.
Once you have sorted data collection, the next step is processing. Car numberplate recognition
from CCTV is easy. Face recognition is growing in reliability (Facebook is interested in
this technology, and is making huge strides. I'm sure the NSA is at least as advanced, if
only by stealing their software). So in a country like the UK with high CCTV coverage, and
high mobile phone usage, suddenly the secret police know everywhere you go, and everyone
you meet.
I would imagine this in place now. In another 5 years, imagine what could be achieved.
Cape7441 StixxZadinia
I think people completely overestimate the ability for a spy agency to process
all that data in a meaningful way...
Absolutely 100% agree, there are approximately 2.5billion Internet users worldwide, there
is no way they can personally monitor more than a tiny minority. If you do something that
raises your profile as a paedophile, terrorist, fraudster, industrial spy then they can
focus in on you but for ordinary law abiding individuals the concern is, in my opinion,
vastly overhyped.
supercobrajet StixxZadinia
You clearly have not been paying attention have you.
StixxZadinia -> supercobrajet
I'm not paranoid is that's what you mean. But I am realistic. These days you can still
make a large passenger airline disappear, do you really think they can get anything sensible
out of the sheer volume of internet traffic? I doubt it.
RoyRoger
People's privacy is violated without any suspicion of wrongdoing, former National
Security Agency contractor claims
In Corporate political American & the United Kingdom world this is how it will be.
We, us humble plebs, live in their Corporate political world not them in ours.
We are just commodities who are there for them to use and abuse.
They preach democracy and freedom at home and have no shame, at all, propping up dictators
across the world and doing so for the past five decades. The, Kiev, fascist molotov cocktail
police murdering coup d'état thugs their latest expensive NATO adventure.
Corporate White House America:
Ł3 Billion corporate power. Lobbyist in the back pockets of politicians; paid to
lobby the Corporate White House to buy get out of jail free cards in order to get anticompetitive
favours and avoid their responsibility to the wider world community.
derekcolman
It's highly unlikely that surveillance would have prevented the 9/11 attacks. The Pentagon
is protected from attack by a no fly zone enforced by the Air Force. Any unauthorised plane
flying towards the Penthouse is supposed to be intercepted and ordered to change course.
Non compliance would result in it being shot down. One or two light planes were intercepted
in the months before the attack, yet on the day a huge airliner flew in unchallenged, and
the planes that should have intercepted it were hundreds of miles away, and flying in the
wrong direction. If they can't get that right, what chance is there that the terrorists
would have been noticed.
QueenBoadicea -> derekcolman
Nor did it prevent the Boston bombings or any of the high school shootings, so what is
it for, if not to spy on all of us thereby making our democracy a total lie
JaitcH
The GCHQ is the bigger enemy of the two. NO transparency, NO meaningful
oversight, NO meaningful government control.And they replicate Apple when
it comes to answering pertinent questions.
The good news is that they are where they never wanted to be - front and centre
of the public's attention.
Where is the legislation, or the regulation, that empowered them to steal
personal pictures, including nudes, of Yahoo users. What security benefit has that served?
At least the watched, us, can take meaningful steps to make their spying harder. Use
TOR, TAILS and VPN software. Clear your cookies daily (a browser setting);
use SILENT CIRCLE, use PGP, and remove your SIM (and hide it) when
crossing international borders. If you buy Chinese-made cell phones you are assured
they don't send everything to the NSA or GCHQ.
The Terrorists/Freedom Fighter/Criminals are already changing their modes of communication,
rendering much of what GCHQ and NSA redundant. Notwithstanding the fact that
the key targets are going 'dark' to GCHQ and NSA, these spies continue to
consume disproportionate amounts of money - all for a failing enterprise.
If you participate in lawful public protest, don't use your cell handsets, switch to
MESH radio products that resist jamming and can easily be encrypted (Search for MESH
network. Occupy) or look in Wikipedia for MESH.
Serval; Dovetail; Musubi; Auto-BAHN; Twimight all
provide information on how to keep YOUR communications private and lock out GCHQ
& NSA.
Remember, the longer they spend decrypting 'nothing' messages, their failure increases.
Remember, using social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) is giving your
privacy away. And feeding the database of the spies.
Pyrrho San Pellegrino -> JaitcH
I kind of feel like the military project that was the internet was phased into the civilian
sector 20-some-odd years ago, with the explicit one-world agenda in mind. But that was high-level
NWO planning. The lower level implementers and architects in academia thought it was about
"freedom" and "increased consumer choice" and "communication" and "bridging divides" and
"connecting the world" and other such pleasantries.
The shadow world government had other intentions: the collectivization of everyone.
It gives the shadow government a top-down view of basically the whole social grid and
all of its interconnections. That's achieved through front-end services like Facebook; but
also, there's a back-end "Facebook" that the public doesn't see. It's a general file on
everyone's info. It's all power.
They're getting their future worker ants to self-organize and self-grid. Getting on the
grid is pitched as the height of "freedom", with words like "sharing" and being "connected".
nowwhataretheyupto
The first moron to say 'If you've done nothing wrong or nothing to hide, you've got nothing
to fear', gets a massive kick in the knackers. To those people who still believe that it
holds true, god help you.
jetassistedostrich -> nowwhataretheyupto
You got that right. Powerful political organizations are compiling lists of potential
political enemies who's only crime is to hold, peacefully and democratically, an opposing
political point of view. How this information may be used in another changed world after
the next 9/11 style event, and the next "patriot act" that further removes due process,
cannot be known, but I cannot imagine it will be to the advantage of any ordinary, law-abiding
citizen.
LeftIsShrinking
The left should rejoice over the stasi controls. Ideology they have is control everything.
Look at all the lefts laws. The word they live to use is control. The more control you give
the more the stasi will take.
antipodes -> LeftIsShrinking
So Hitler was from the left then? I would say that we get confused by using labels that
don't really fit. Tony Blair was hardly from the left while Malcolm Fraser was hardly from
the right. Today's ALP is a weird and confused mixture of left centrist and right. Even
the unions have their right wingers like Joe Bullock who used his corporate power to get
elected to parliament.
Those creating our controlled world today are not Governments but corporations through neocons
with one foot in the corporate camp and the other in politics.
Anyone who watched the Victoria Nuland tape on Ukraine should understand that it was not
Obama or the US congress deciding what would happen in Ukraine it was Nuland who summoned
the Vice President and to the Head of the UN to go to Ukraine to give "attaboy" speeches
in favour of her chosen new leader of Ukraine.
In the USA, ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Committee) with their powerful corporate
members continue to push their model laws through the Congress and state legislatures to
reduce gun controls and water down laws protecting workplace safety environmental protection.
The NSA and other state security organizations work with ALEC and the Bankers to destroy
democratic protest movements like Occupy.
Tony Abbott is moving Australia towards this USA model and already has a weaker version
of ALEC in the IPA. There members and employees are thick on the ground in the Abbott administration.
He is also moving to reduce the power Government and hand this power and government businesses
to corporations.
Any person who wants to Australia to not be run by right wing corporations should be
grateful for Snowden's revelations and be prepared to resist Abbott and his cronies in the
IPA. They do not have your interest at heart.
murraynho
Errr. And this is a surprise?
antipodes -> murraynho
It may not be a surprise but it is confirmed which gives those of us who care about our
freedom and our right to privacy greater moral authority when we contest the states right
to collect masses of information on us.
What is also concerning is that in the USA and increasingly in Australia and other Western
countries those in charge of security and insecurity are private companies owned by huge
powerful military industrial and finance companies that can spy on their rivals and steal
their intellectual property for their own enrichment at our expense.
The information they gather can be used for blackmailing individuals to profit the security
companies and to force politicians to award them more contracts.
oppons
I don't mind being spied on, so long as I don't get blown up, not a hard choice when
it comes down to it.
And really, lets be honest, the CIA and mi6/GCHQ are after the bad guys, I don't think
they are interested in anything apart from stopping terrorists, and if you think otherwise
i'm afraid you are delusional.
Most people fall over themselves to let the world know their every move via twitter/facebook,
why get so mad?
maddymilnes -> oppons
Define bad guys...imagine if an extreme right wing party were in power and what they
would do with the information.
FerventPixel
Well, the NSA and GCHQ are each receiving about 2 Tb of randomly-generated data from
me each month.
Drown the fuckers.
MCA van Loenen
What is the big deal here. Only people that want to hide something especially things
online should be worried. And that can only be a good thing. Away with all the secrecy!
curiouswes -> MCA van Loenen
What is the big deal here.
If you live in the USA and can read
this article,, and can then tell me there is no "big deal" here, then I'd venture to
say the big deal is your reading comprehension ability.
antipodes -> MCA van Loenen
Great MCA van Loenen will you kindly post all of your banking information online so we
can read it and while you are at it what about your personal emails between you and your
partner so we can be sure you are not some sort of sexual deviant.
OrlandosTwin
It comes as no surprise that, in an inter-connected technological world, we are all subject
to surveillance of some sort.
When governments use this as a means of controlling their population and people in foreign
countries - as is happening - we need to ask exactly who is behind the mass surveillance
and who (what state, political group, or religious group, etc) they are they working for.
Governments will - already have - attempted to use "terrorism" and "national security"
as pretexts for any form of surveillance. It is unacceptable without clear explanation,
democratic approval and accountability. We need to protect our freedoms.
Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden put their lives in jeopardy to inform us of what various
state bodies do "in the interest of the public." They need to be protected, congratulated
and valued for their bravery and honesty.
Liberator37 OrlandosTwin
we are all subject to surveillance of some sort.
It's never ceased to amaze me that the collection of data for marketing purposes (the
more efficient delivery of offers that can be either accepted or refused) is widely regarded
as less acceptable than the collection of data by government for whatever purpose it may
deem proper, including extreme prejudice, which amount to offers impossible to refuse.
There is, alas, much more government spying to come, as soon as they get around to it.
sunshinewestmelb
From Sept 11 we willingly let them do it to us .1000's of changes to laws in 100's of
countries ensued .We believed the story of the war on terror . Now we act surprised that
they did it . Would you expect a police officer to say 'no thanks we dont want more powerful
weapons and we wouldnt use them if we had them anyway ' ?
AhBrightWings -> sunshinewestmelb
Well...that's exactly why some of us were protesting the very day the insane tautology
"war on terror" (how exactly do you declare war on an abstract noun?) was unleashed. We
were told we were "cranks," "un-American," "traitors," and "terrorist sympathizers." Those
were the kind words.
My sister had her yard trashed repeatedly, garbage thrown at her, death threats left
on the lawn, obscenities screamed at her house, and her car keyed for daring to hang a sign
that kept track of the Iraqi war dead. My niece was reprimanded by the principal and threatened
with explusion, at ten, for posting a picture on her locker of bombed Iraqi children, with
the simply query: "What would you do if it were someone you knew? Join the peace movement."
My sister's friend, an elderly Quaker woman, stood every single Saturday for ten years protesting
this misbegotten war. She has been called a "fucking bitch," had trash, rocks, bottles,
and dog shit thrown at her for exercising her constitutional rights to assemble and speak.
She often went home bruised. My children were a toddler and five-year-old protesting outside
of the White House with a million other people. My daughter returned at ten, having driven
with me from Ohio to mark the onset of this insanity, and I said to my friends, fellow Salon
readers that met up to protest, that I now realized there was a real chance she would mark
each decade of her life in the shadow of this insanity.
So no, not all of "us" by any means are surprised by this. Some of us called it down
the line exactly as it has unfolded one terrible, inevitable, absolutely predictable step
at a time. Some of us even tried in futile, small ways to stop it. We were told we were
wearing tin hats and were fools for the efforts.
That said, I agree with your overarching sense that it is too late. I have no idea of
how-- and little hope that we can-- now backtrack, especially since the NSA revelations
have not tipped us over into widespread protests, ones where those doing the right thing
aren't being excoriated and alienated for holding their government accountable.
EXILE64
But it isn't just the mainstream media we shouldn't trust , we shouldn't trust the alternative
media either. People like Alex Jones , Christopher Greene , David Icke and Abby Martin of
RT's Breaking the Set are all raving lunatics in my opinion although much of what they say
maybe true , I feel some of it is just to try to scare people. When people are scared the
global elite have total control. So I sometimes wonder if the people I've mentioned above
are just working for the elitists trying to scare us into slavery , or are they true fighters
of freedom?
William Greendale -> EXILE64
The political power is in the hands of those who have the economic power, ie. the capitalist
class.
Many of the alternative media seems to be against state control, but is any on them against
capitalism? The state is in the hands of capitalists and that doesn't change as long as
the society is a capitalist one.
It could be a good strategy by the capitalists to make people believe that they should
fight against state as such and not fight for the control of state (ie. fight for the control
of the means of production).
griffinalabama
The next step is the worrisome one....where the local police start being able to use
the information and sit outside your house watching your internet activity and then busting
you for checking out porn based upon whether your too liberal or not for their liking. Not
too dissimilar from Brazil or a Kafka novel. 10 years ago people believed it would never
get to where we are now....but look at where it is.
America...Land of the Free....is actually mirroring the former Soviet Union
in many of it's behaviors.
elevengoalposts griffinalabama
''where the local police start being able to use the information and sit outside
your house watching your internet activity and then busting you for checking out porn
based upon whether your too liberal or not for their liking.''
Do you really imagine that anyone would ever be interested in 'no marks' like that?
Longasyourarm -> elevengoalposts
They would if you are an elected official, or a political enemy, or maybe if they
just fancy what you have.
Hoover did it at the FBI, and human nature does not change.
SinisterLord
Ourselves, and our lives are now nothing but searchable criteria. This is a
stupid amount of power waiting to be misused by anyone with access to it and the fact that
people don't realise or seem to care is worrying and sad.
Credit where credit's due though, this government have done a great job stifling debate
on this issue here.
MadShelley
From everything I have read, it seems clear that the NSA and collaborating governments,
such as our own, are collecting all possible information on all citizens. This is processed
in gigantic databases that can be accessed at any time. The 'legitimate' use of this system
then requires an investigator, unknown and unaccountable to us, to examine someone's life
record only when they have a valid reason, which must be selected from a drop-down list.
The reassurance offered by former NSA director Keith Alexander (which tacitly confirms
this picture) is that these are good, responsible people, there to protect us, and they
will be disciplined if they abuse the searches.
So, don't worry, everyone. The state and its foreign allies are recording the communications,
contacts, movements, purchase history, library lists, and views of every man, woman and
child. But it's fine, because they are not allowed to look at your life record unless they
give a reason. Also, the state and all its foreign allies are comprised of good people,
and only ever out to help you.
That they have the balls to tell us this with a straight face, to even suggest that this
is compatible with the Constitution, demonstrates the extent of the state's contempt for
the citizen, and the once unthinkable reality it has normalised.
Quadspect
The implication of criticisms of unconstitional mass surveilance, is that NSA's actual
missions, as opposed to "preserving our way of life," are antithetical propositions. Bush
and Condoleeza Rice, with ties to the oil industry, received briefs before 9/11 warning
them of Al Qaida plans to use planes to attack buildings of significance in the U.S., and
chose not to act to secure airports. What security-related information NSA might, or might
not, have collected at that time, was obviously irrelevant to the outcome of a war on Iraq
a country that did not attack us and which, at the time, had nothing to do with Al Qaida,
and had not, as propagandists alleged, weapons of mass destruction.
maxiboy339
I've seen a Facebook meme a few times that says something like 'pointing out the illegal
things your government has done is itself illegal'. Is this just more Facebook crap or is
it actually based on something?
William Greendale maxiboy339
Well, it might be true. I wouldn't be surprised if some anti-terrorism law said in effect
just that.
Pointing out that the governement has done something illegal could be seen as hostile
against the government and as such as an attack against the government and thereby "all
the good people".
The feeling that those who make or impose the laws don't need to abide them is quite
prevalent in our time. In the good old days people thought it was important that the authorities
were law-abiding.
SinisterLord William Greendale
Reminds me of that ridiculous statement by John Sawer - Chief of MI6 in response to the
Guardian's revelations:-
"It's clear that our adversaries are rubbing their hands in glee," he told lawmakers.
"Al Qaeda is lapping it up.""
Scare-mongering arsewipes basically.
Andrew G Mooney
And all of this data is secure within the covert surveillance systems? How long before
there's a trade with data-mining corporations and their HR departments?
Of the 40k people with security clearance to access these systems, how many are double-agents
working on behalf of foreign intelligence agencies or terrorist groups?
It's amusing that most people continue with the charade of pseudo-anonymity. What
people need to do is flood the internet with bogus search data and "Likes!" to render the
algorithms of surveillance unreliable. It's a personal choice as to whether or not people
choose to leave a valid data trail by their online activity. I'd love to see any agency
try to parse my online data trail to my real-life. \
If even a small percentage adopt "Do Not Track", randomly likes things they dislike,
and generally remix/mash-up their data, the corporations that complied with the surveillance
state demands suddenly will have a blizzard of irrelevant data they cannot monetize.
And there would be some rather amusing court cases that would establish the fact that the
Interweb is already trashed. Just because somebody posts something on the Interweb, does
that mean it's "true"? Do people take an oath to confirm their search history and shopping
wish-lists are true?
Time for everyone to become The Unreliable Narrator. It's time to destroy Teh
Interwebz, as an act of revenge. And for lulz, of course!
William Greendale Andrew G Mooney
I think that's exactly what those in power want to achieve: make us like something we
dislike.
Carybdeida
What Snowden proved id that the US Government has declared a direct war with the US Constitution
in order to 'somehow' provided security. So my question to the US Government is, what are
you fighting to protect?
If all this metadata collection is supposed to leave us safer then why are there so many
school shootings, and mass shooting on our military bases, or the Boston bombing, Benghazi
and the list goes on and on... Either the US government is spending trillions on a failed
surveillance program or they knowingly allowed these horrific events to take place. Regardless
of which answer is true the solution is the same, refund the NSA! Arrest the Congress members
and Judges that supported it on charges of treason and prove to us that the 14th Amendment
still exist by dropping all charges against Snowden.
callitwhatitis
The story here shouldn't be "everyone is being spied on" because we knew that. The story
is various parties had a debate. But that's not really interesting.
What is interesting and at the same time headshakingly depressing is the decision
by the German government to not allow Edward Snowden to come to Germany to give evidence
before a hearing on the NSA on the basis of (unsolicited) "advice" (for that read "threat")
from a US law firm that anyone in the committee who interviewed him would be effectively
breaking the (US) law and would be liable to prosecution (quote: "has jurisdiction to prosecute
crimes committed in Germany, Russia or elsewhere through which classified information from
the U.S. has been disclosed") and, for example, might not want to step foot in the USA for
fear of being arrested. The German government said they didn't want to upset commercial
and political relations between the two countries.
zipideedooda
Invent an enemy, in this case an Islamic bogeyman, to enable justification of mass surveillance.
The (supposed) terrorists are not the ones the NSA and GCHQ see as a threat to the powers
that be. It's really Mr and Mrs average that they feel need spied on and suppressed.
trooth
People forget that 9/11 was the start of 'preemption', adopted from techniques used by
clever people in the Middle East. No longer would the West respond to attacks, it would
respond to 'perceived threats'.
Preemptive strikes are based on intelligence gathering and give the user the godlike
power to take out a 'potential' threat before the threat is enacted: so now we have more
arrests on unfounded, unproven accusations, actions taken by 'association', and the equivalent
within our own societies of drone strikes on innocent people acting 'suspiciously' with
the concomitant 'collateral damage' of innocent women and kids. We have grown used to seeing
it happen on our screens and told it is in our own interests.
Preemption through mass data storage makes people think that so much data cannot possibly
be scanned so quickly or meaningfully and therefore is not a threat to the innocent. To
understand how quickly the infinitessimal can be read, try first folding the biggest piece
of paper you can find more than ten times - you quickly find it is so thick you cant even
get to a hundred layers. Now realise that computers can repeat things millions of times
in a second and don't have things like 'thickness' to stop them - then do the final test
and do a Google search: all you have to do is put in three or four words that 'imply' meaning
and you will get an INSTANT answer from the TRILLIONS of bits of data that Google hold and
add to constantly every day.
Intelligence agencies obviously have the equivalent speed of filtering for their own
data and can trawl every day's data for their 'meaningful combinations in an instant.
Then consider what you get from Google: you get 'weighted' information according to the
commercial preferential treatment certain sources pay for to place their infommercials first.
Google also tries to preempt what you are looking for by cookying your own details and using
those cookies it to set your (or more probably its own) priorities.
So the intel agencies can easily do the same - they must set 'weights of suspicion' into
their searches to preempt who is most likely to be those persons they are looking for.
All very well you may say, but we know that drone victims have often been zapped for
merely carrying out actions that fit a 'pattern' (i.e. search pattern).
By writing this comment, I may be attributing to myself a suspicious pattern and will
rise up the suspicion order. Why? Because I am intelligent and can see how things work?
Because I may be informing other innocent people (who by preemption are quite likely nevertheless
to be other 'suspicious characters') and I therefore need to be silenced in case the wrong
people see how its done??
That is how we, as innocent observers, can very quickly and very easily get branded as
suspicious by the use of automated pattern searching. Anybody who has used artificial intelligence
programming will know that expert systems rarely tell the system user how they reached their
clever conclusions and how just one input error can lead to a totally wrong solution to
the problem. That is how drone controllers kill innocent people and that is how the types
of systems now being used by all intel agencies are so dangerous without human intelligence
having a full grasp of and control over all the stages of the filtering process.
So don't tell me I have nothing to fear by being an 'innocent citizen', a bystander to
the new 'shoot them before they shoot you' culture so typical of the US gun lobby mentality,
or CIA 'shit happens' consolation spin, and 'don't worry: what you don't know can't hurt
you' political demagoguery.
nicholson77
Surveillance isn't security it's ideology.
The ability of secret services who operate, in part, outside of the laws we commonly
understand anyway, to snoop on anybody is, well exactly what they are designed to do.
So who gets snooped on ? Generally speaking the figures show that it's just less that
500.000 per 50 million who interest the secret services. It's worth drawing on the procedures
of 'neutralisation' which the Nazis applied to each country it invaded. Lists of Jews and
the racially impure aside, the short lists of suspects to be neutralised usually only ran
into the 10s of thousands per entire population. The list of individuals to be 'neutralised'
in the event of a successful Nazi invasion in the UK was a mere 17.000 individuals. The
statistics reveal that it is the minority of a population who maintain the presence liberal
freedoms largely through their voice.
What do you have to do to get on the snoop list ? Well apart from the usual connections
with anything political including it seems being a member of an anti-ring road pressure
group, crime, vice, drugs, terrorism, illicit money , arms, slave, terrorism, contentious
forms of cultural expression etc - if you stick your neck out and get noticed - if you want
to be a player - if you make yourself publicly known, if you become associated with any
kind of issue that comes to bare in the media, if you approach any national institution
where state security has an aspect, then you are potentially a subject who needs to be looked
in to.
On top of that you have to look at the political allegiances of the intelligent service
personnel who may bend the law so they can examine you at close call. There're very
likely to be into the fuzziness of the law that operates within intelligence anyway. On
top of that they get a kick out of the power snooping gives them. Then there's always the
bonus they might be sourcing a subject who needs to be legitimately watched and that kind
of find creates promotion. On top of that might be a background in the military, perhaps
with service in Northern Ireland along with a pathological right wing allegiances to, in
the UK at least, Queen and country. In the UK the police are notoriously divided by along
class lines with the Police traditionally loathing the upper middle class bastions of the
Law courts and judges. This division runs through the heart of the institutions that run
through British Law. Your rogue snooper is likely to belong to the upper middle class loathing
/ right wing / Freemason aspirant faction.
The one safe guard in the UK at least, is that paranoid secret service snoopers with
nothing better to do may feel an omnipotent sense of power over individuals, even revel
in a sense of actually authoring by veto History itself, but their hands are in fact
tied by the 'case-live locks' which bind the results of snooping. These simple rules and
procedures which control the ability of a case file to actually condemn a subject in a court
of law are the difference between living in a fascist/totalitarian state and living in a
free liberal state. The line that separates them turns out to be very close in deed.
A simple procedure that must be followed. However it effectively castrates the omnipotent
fantasies of our annoying in-house secret service snoopers and defers them to the reality
of Law which in the end is often organised by the priorities and budget constraints of front
line police with limited man-power and who unlike their secret service counter parts, must
be seen to act strictly within accordance of the Law.
Edward Frederick -> Ezell
Knowledge is power.
Privileged knowledge is the destroyer of justice.
Egalitarian economics and politics cannot exist without egalitarian information access
and processing
thedono
George Orwell will be turning in his grave
Serves us right!
We are more interested in interest rates, mortgages and footy than our own freedom
As for anybody else's freedom?
Dream on!
eldudeabides
It's all about money.
The Washington-led New World Order have cynically hijacked 911 and used it as their excuse
to watch and record everything we do.
It's got effectively nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with industrial
espionage and control.
As with pursuing the mafia, one only needs to follow the money trail.
And it all leads back to big business and senior politicians in Washington (and satellite
regimes).
Vocalista -> eldudeabides
With the collapse of communism in 1989, the powers that (should never) be needed a new
bogeyman to continue the military industrial complex...terrorism is the new communism.
consciouslyinformed -> eldudeabides
Yes it is all about money.
The surveillance, however did not begin with 9/11; the surveillance has been in effect
for many many many years. Especially more so with the advent of computers.
Try using the Internet to learn about the way science, philosophers, and other more highly
beneficial groups of human beings have been able to demonstrate some of the most complex
designs of the universe, and how those mysteries reveal far more important aspects of our
connection to "the whole universe." That, my friend is reality. The other bs, is a fiction
perpetrated by individuals whose wealth and position they pay others to be part of a demeaning
exercise for further wealth and power, is their own fable. Remember, most fairy tales have
horrific content, such as what nightmares are made of....
Use the knowledge that we have unfettered access to, in order to pursue loftier insight
and enlightenment, and leave the head games to the head cases! Yes?
diddoit
I watched the debate on the live stream provided (sad , I know ;-) )
It seemed to me, Dershowitz wanted to make the debate one of: Surveillance: for or against.
He may be great at law , but he clearly knew nothing on the technical side about what these
agencies do.
Although, he caught Grenwald out at one point with regards to Greenwald's point about
'Terrorism ' being just a pretext' ,Dershowitz rightly reasoned, that therefore there must
be a another motive, which Greenwald couldn't or wouldn't elaborate on . Greenwald could
have and shouild have brushed this off easier though.
The killer point was made by Greenwald imho, it was made at Hayden's expense. Hayden
claimed multiple oversight protections are in place to prevent misuse of data. However,
Greenwald rightly countered with his own question; If so many protections are in place
how come Snowden walked off with all your documents, and worse, you didn't at the time (and
still don't know having spent millions investigating) what he took?
jmac55
What amazes me is that what we see today is not new and didn't just happen yesterday!
But the problem was that most people weren't paying attention when they should have been!
I had argued over fifteen years ago, that the Government had the ability to watch, read
and listen to everything we did with the internet and mobile phones, and also pointed out
at the time that because they had the ability, they were almost certainly going to utilise
it! They has already passed laws that required that US computer and communication companies
install back doors into equipment and software sold to foreign companies to enable them
to do so and there was no reason to believe that they wouldn't use the same ability to spy
domestically.
People rolled their eyes and accused me of being paranoid because no-one would believe
that they would do so!
The fact that the technology, that makes the internet and these other forms of communications
possible, were all born of military projects, and the Government was quite happy to give
away this knowledge for civilian purposes, should have given us a clue that when they finally
arrived in our homes, the technology could be used for more nefarious purposes.
And so it has.
Nothing is given away for free! There is always a price!
eb7601
"What is state surveillance?" Greenwald asked. "If it were about targeting in a discriminate
way against those causing harm, there would be no debate.
Well said, Glenn, as usual. and many of us agree. (As for Hayden, who would ever trust a
man who says, "Trust me.")
If one really wants to know about some of the indiscriminate activities taking place
in the U.S., please take a look at fightgangstalking.com "Gang stalking" (a terrible term,
IMO) is nothing more than "street language" for certain counterintelligence activities that
are being run by the FBI, in conjuction with other agencies, including state and local law
enforcement. These "activities" are nothing more than witch hunts, in most cases) Disinformation
swirls... and anyone who tries to get the attention of the MSM (or anyone else, for that
matter) is quickly labeled "delusional".
So, bottom line, what we currently have in the U.S. is a Stasi-like apparatus, ruining
the lives of a lot of good people. For now, these operations are running under the radar
of most, but that they're a reality... is a fact. Bush and Cheney apparently decided to
run with Operation TIPs, without congressional authorization, and it continues.
Make no mistake, "Operation TIPS" (with some twists) is in full swing and has been for
a very long time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_TIPS
Russian president's remark fans idea that has gained ground in Germany, Brazil and elsewhere
after Edward Snowden's revelationsVladimir Putin gave his clearest signal yet that
he aims to break up the global nature of the
internet when he branded the network
a "CIA project" on Thursday.
The Russian president told a media conference in St Petersburg that America's overseas espionage
agency had originally set up the internet and was continuing to develop it.
Putin has long hinted that he wants a Russian-run alternative. The idea of breaking up the
internet has gained ground in Germany, Brazil and elsewhere round the world in the light of
the revelations by whistleblower
Edward Snowden about the extent to which the US National Security Agency has infiltrated
Facebook, Skype and other social media.
Snowden's critics say that an unintended consequences of his revelations has been to undermine
the global nature of the web as well as playing into the hands of dictators. His supporters
counter that it is the NSA rather than Snowden
that has damaged trust in the service.
During a recent national televised question and answer session, Putin batted away a question
from Snowden – who won temporary asylum in
Russia after having his US passport revoked – about whether Russia also intercepted and
stored communications harvested from the internet, as the US did. "I hope we don't do that,"
he said to applause from the studio audience. "We don't have as much money as they do in the
US."
Putin acknowledged that there was surveillance of criminals and potential terrorists but
denied there was mass surveillance of citizens.
A purely Russian-run system could make it easier for the Russian intelligence services to
monitor and control traffic. The Kremlin already has powerful tools in place for this, but nonetheless
the internet offers a platform for Russian opposition groups denied a voice on the country's
television and radio. At the same media conference, Putin also referred directly to the most
popular search engine in Russia, Yandex – a reference that caused its shares to plummet.
Putin's St Petersburg comments could herald the most serious challenge yet to the world wide
web, which was founded by the British computer scientist Sir Tim Berners-Lee.
Putin claimed the "CIA project" was still developing and that Russia needed to be protected
from it. The nation had a duty to resist that influence and fight for its interests online,
he said.
His remarks come in the wake of a law passed by the Russian parliament this week requiring
foreign social media websites to keep their servers in Russia. The law also requires them to
save all information about their users for at least six months.
Business executives close to Putin now control Russia's leading social network, VKontakte.
Putin, in referring to Yandex, criticised the company for its registration in the Netherlands,
"not only for tax reasons but for other considerations too". He was responding to a questioner
who complained that Yandex was storing information on servers abroad, potentially compromising
Russian security.
Snowden has previously faced criticism from within America for accepting asylum in Russia
but failing to speak out against the authoritarian nature of the regime. After addressing Putin
last week, he was accused of putting a softball question to him.
Top computer and internet experts say that NSA spying
breaks the functionality of our computers and of the Internet. It reduces functionality
and reduces security by – for example –
creating backdoors that malicious hackers can get through.
Remember, American and British spy agencies have intentionally weakened security
for
many decades. And it's getting worse and worse. For example, they plan to use automated
programs to
infect millions of computers.
NSA also encourages large internet companies to delay patching vulnerabilities, to allow
the NSA time to exploit them. See
this and
this. In other words, the NSA encourages companies to allow vulnerabilities to remain unfixed.
You've heard of the scary new "Heartbleed" computer vulnerability?
The NSA has exploited it – and kept it hidden from consumers and security experts – for years.
Bloomberg
reports:
The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way
that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly
used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.
***
Heartbleed appears to be one of the biggest glitches in the Internet's history, a flaw
in the basic security of as many as two-thirds of the world's websites.
***
Putting the Heartbleed bug in its arsenal, the NSA was able to obtain passwords and other
basic data that are the building blocks of the sophisticated hacking operations at the core
of its mission, but at a cost. Millions of ordinary users were left vulnerable to attack
from other nations' intelligence arms and criminal hackers.
"It flies in the face of the agency's comments that defense comes first," said Jason
Healey, director of the cyber statecraft initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former
Air Force cyber officer. "They are going to be completely shredded by the computer security
community for this."
With every new leak from Edward Snowden's bottomless trove of pilfered documents, it gets
harder to keep track of all the bizarre ways the National Security Agency has cooked up to spy
on people and governments. This may help.
Data in Motion
NSA's spies divide targets into two broad categories: data in motion and data at rest. Information
moving to and from mobile phones, computers, data centers, and satellites is often easier to
grab, and the agency sucks up vast amounts worldwide. Yet common data such as e-mail is often
protected with encryption once it leaves a device, making it harder-but not impossible-to crack.
Data at Rest
Retrieving information from hard drives, overseas data centers, or cell phones is more difficult,
but it's often more valuable because stored data is less likely to be encrypted, and spies can
zero in on exactly what they want. NSA lawyers can compel U.S. companies to hand over some of
it; agency hackers target the most coveted and fortified secrets inside computers of foreign
governments.
Where the Data Goes
Much of the data the NSA compiles from all these efforts will be stored in its million-square-foot
data center near Bluffdale, Utah. It can hold an estimated 12 exabytes of data. An exabyte is
the equivalent of 1 billion gigabytes.
US officials on Friday slammed plans to construct an EU-centric communication system, designed
to prevent emails and phone calls from being swept up by the NSA, warning that such a move is
a violation of trade laws.
Calling Europe's proposal to build its own integrated communication system "draconian," the
office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) said American tech companies, which are worth an
estimated $8 trillion per year, would take a financial hit if Brussels gives the initiative
the green light.
"Recent proposals from countries within the European Union to create a Europe-only electronic
network (dubbed a 'Schengen cloud' by advocates) or to create national-only electronic networks
could potentially lead to effective exclusion or discrimination against foreign service suppliers
that are directly offering network services, or dependent on them," the USTR said in its annual
report.
In the aftermath of Edward Snowden's whistleblowing activities at the National Security Agency,
which proved that much of the world's telecommunication meta-data is being stored away in the
United States, European countries – notably Germany and France - are desperate to get a handle
on their own networks without relying on a meddlesome middleman.
Germany's outrage over the revelations hit full stride last month when Der Spiegel, the popular
daily newspaper, asked if it is "time for the country to open a formal espionage investigation"
following yet more disclosures that Britain's GCHQ infiltrated German internet companies and
the NSA collected information about (German Chancellor Angela) "Merkel in a special database."
Now, US trade officials are up in arms over proposals by Germany's Deutsche Telekom (in which
the German government owns less than 30 percent), to avoid passing communications to the United
States, saying the move would give European companies an unfair advantage over their US colleagues.
"Any mandatory intra-EU routing may raise questions with respect to compliance with the EU's
trade obligations with respect to internet-enabled services," the USTR said. "Accordingly, USTR
will be carefully monitoring the development of any such proposals."
If the European-centric plan gets the go ahead, it would require the dismantlement of the
Safe Harbor agreement that allows US companies access to European data. It should be noted that
despite the work of the NSA, Europe has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world.
US telecommunication and internet firms are now lobbying Washington to calm fears over privacy
concerns in an effort to halt Europe's move toward protectionism.
Similar criticisms were directed by the USTR at another American ally, Canada. The representative
complained about privacy rules enforced in Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Nova Scotia,
which do not normally allow public bodies to store and access private data of Canadians outside
the country.
The USTR also criticized the Canadian federal government's move to build a unified email
system, which required data to be stored in Canada and thus prevented US companies from bidding.
Bell Canada eventually won the $400-million contract.
"In today's information-based economy, particularly where a broad range of services are moving
to "cloud" based delivery where US firms are market leaders, this law hinders US exports of
a wide array of products and services," the report said.
Much like the EU, Canada has concerns over its dependence on US for routing telecommunications,
with some 90 percent of all Canadian internet traffic going through the US. The Canadian Internet
Registration Authority proposed in October 2013 building up domestic infrastructure, which would
change this and protect the data from potential NSA snooping.
Secret documents
newly disclosed by the German newspaper Der Spiegel on Saturday shed more light
on how aggressively the National Security Agency and its British counterpart have targeted Germany
for surveillance.
A series of classified files from the archive provided to reporters by NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden, also seen by The Intercept, reveal that the NSA appears to have included
Merkel in a surveillance database alongside more than 100 others foreign leaders. The documents
also confirm for the first time that, in March 2013, the NSA obtained a top-secret court order
against Germany as part of U.S. government efforts to monitor communications related to the
country. Meanwhile, the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters targeted three
German companies in a clandestine operation that involved infiltrating the companies' computer
servers and eavesdropping on the communications of their staff.
Der Spiegel, which has already sketched out over several stories the vast extent
of American and British targeting of German people and institutions,
broke the news last October that Merkel's cellphone calls were being tapped by the NSA –
sparking a diplomatic backlash that strained US-Germany relations. Now a new document, dated
2009, indicates that Merkel was targeted in a broader NSA surveillance effort. She appears to
have been placed in the NSA's so-called "Target Knowledge Base" (TKB), which Der Spiegel
described as the central agency database of individual targets. An internal NSA description
states that employees can use it to analyze "complete profiles" of targeted people.
A classified file demonstrating an NSA search system named Nymrod shows Merkel listed alongside
other heads of state. Only 11 names are shown on the document, including Syria's Bashar al-Assad,
Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko, and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe – the list is in alphabetical order
by first name – but it indicates that the full list contains 122 names. The NSA uses the Nymrod
system to "find information relating to targets that would otherwise be tough to track down,"
according to internal NSA documents. Nymrod sifts through secret reports based on intercepted
communications as well as full transcripts of faxes, phone calls, and communications collected
from computer systems. More than 300 "cites" for Merkel are listed as available in intelligence
reports and transcripts for NSA operatives to read.
But the NSA's surveillance of Germany has extended far beyond its leader. Der Spiegel
reporters Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark – together with The Intercept's Laura Poitras
– described a separate document from the NSA's Special Source Operations unit, which shows that
the Obama administration obtained a top-secret court order specifically permitting it to monitor
communications related to Germany. Special Source Operations is the NSA department that manages
what the agency describes as its "corporate partnerships" with major US companies, including
AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. The order on Germany was issued by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court on March 7, 2013. The court issues annual certifications to the NSA that
authorize the agency to intercept communications related to named countries or groups; it has
provided similar authorization, Der Spiegel reported, for measures targeting China,
Mexico, Japan, Venezuela, Yemen, Brazil, Sudan, Guatemala, Bosnia and Russia.
The NSA on Friday declined to comment to The Intercept about its role in conducting
surveillance of Germany and deferred questions to the National Security Council and the Justice
Department. The DOJ had not responded at the time of publication. National Security Council
spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told The Intercept that the Obama administration was "not
monitoring and will not monitor the communications of Chancellor Merkel." However, Hayden did
not deny that the surveillance had occurred in the past – and declined to rule out spying on
other senior German officials going forward. "We have made clear that the United States gathers
foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations," she said.
The secret files reveal some specific German targets – none of whom appear to have been suspected
of any wrongdoing. One undated document shows how British GCHQ operatives hacked into the computer
servers of the German satellite communications providers
Stellar and
Cetel, and also targeted
IABG, a security contractor and communications
equipment provider with close ties to the German government. The document outlines how GCHQ
identified these companies' employees and customers, making lists of emails that identified
network engineers and chief executives. It also suggests that IABG's networks may have been
"looked at" by the NSA's Network Analysis Center.
The ultimate aim of GCHQ was to obtain information that could help the spies infiltrate "teleport"
satellites sold by these companies that send and receive data over the Internet. The document
notes that GCHQ hoped to identify "access chokepoints" as part of a wider effort alongside partner
spy agencies to "look at developing possible access opportunities" for surveillance.
In other words, infiltrating these companies was viewed as a means to an end for the British
agents. Their ultimate targets were likely the customers. Cetel's customers, for instance, include
governments that use its communications systems to connect to the Internet in Africa and the
Middle East. Stellar provides its communications systems to a diverse range of customers that
could potentially be of interest to the spies – including multinational corporations, international
organizations, refugee camps, and oil drilling platforms.
The chief executives of Cetel and Stellar both told Der Spiegel they were surprised
that their companies had been targeted by GCHQ. Christian Steffen, the Stellar CEO, was himself
named on GCHQ's list of targets. "I am shocked," he told the newspaper. IABG did not respond
to a request for comment.
GCHQ issued a standard response when contacted about its targeting of the German companies,
insisting that its work "is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework
which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate."
But German authorities may take a different view on the legalities of the clandestine intrusions.
Earlier this month – prior to the latest revelations – German Federal Public Prosecutor Harald
Range told the newspaper Die Tageszeitung
he was already conducting a probe into possible "espionage offenses" related to the targeting
of the country. "I am currently reviewing whether reasonable suspicion exists," Range said,
"for an actionable criminal offense."
Super
high-speed Internet connections are required at the ground stations in Germany in order to ensure
the highest levels of service possible. Most are connected to major European Internet backbones
that offer particularly high bandwidth. The service they offer isn't just attractive
to customers who want to improve their connectivity. It is also of interest to Britain's
GCHQ intelligence service, which has targeted the German companies. Top secret documents
from the archive of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden viewed by SPIEGEL show that the British
spies surveilled employees of several German companies, and have also infiltrated their networks.
One top-secret GCHQ paper claims the agency sought "development of in-depth knowledge of
key satellite IP service providers in Germany." The document, which is undated, states that
the goal of the effort was developing wider knowledge of Internet traffic flowing through
Germany. The 26-page document explicitly names three of the German companies targeted
for surveillance: Stellar, Cetel and IABG.
The operation, carried out at listening stations operated jointly by GCHQ with the NSA in
Bude, in Britain's Cornwall region, is largely directed at Internet exchange points used by
the ground station to feed the communications of their large customers into the broadband Internet.
In addition to spying on the Internet traffic passing through these nodes, the GCHQ workers
state they are also seeking to identify important customers of the German teleport providers,
their technology suppliers as well as future technical trends in their business sector.
... ... ...
It was not just the company infrastructure, but their workers as well that were part of the
targeting:
The document also states that company employees are targets -- particularly engineers
-- saying that they should be detected and "tasked," intelligence jargon for monitoring.
In the case of Stellar, the top secret GCHQ paper includes the names and email addresses
of 16 employees, including CEO Christian Steffen. In addition, it also provides a list of
the most-important customers and partners. Contacted by SPIEGEL, Stellar CEO Steffen
said he had not been aware of any attempts by intelligence services to infiltrate or hack
his company. "I am shocked," he said.
The other two key backbone providers were also hacked, one of which does "considerable
business with the Bundeswehr, Germany's armed forces", something which the NSA most certainly
was privy to:
Intelligence workers in Bude also appear to have succeeded in infiltrating competitor
Cetel. The document states that workers came across four "servers of interest" and were
able to create a comprehensive list of customers. According to Cetel CEO Guido Neumann,
the company primarily serves customers in Africa and the Middle East and its clients include
non-governmental organizations as well as a northern European country that uses Cetel to
connect its diplomatic outposts to the Internet. Neumann also says he was surprised when
he learned his firm had been a target.
The firm IABG in Ottobrunn appears to have been of particular interest to the intelligence
service -- at least going by a short notation that only appears next to the Bavarian company's
name. It notes, "this may have already been looked at by NSA NAC," a reference to the NSA's
network analysis center.
IABG also does considerable business with the Bundeswehr, Germany's armed forces.
The company states that its "defense and security" unit is "committed to the armed forces
and their procurement projects." These include solutions for "security issues, for prevention
and reactions against dangers like terrorism and attacks against critical infrastructure.
At this point, Germany may finally be getting angry at its "closest friend", the US, and
its ubiqutous spies, whose actions have been revealed for the entire world to see thanks to
one whistleblower:
Monitoring companies and their employees along with the theft of customer lists
are classic acts of economic espionage. Indeed, such revelations ought be a case
for the German federal public prosecutors' office, which in the past has initiated investigations
into comparable cases involving Russia or China.
The USA neoliberal elite now need to think twice about sanctions, as they can be replied asymmetrically
and in a very damaging way...
Microsoft has lost customers, including the government of Brazil. IBM is spending more than
a billion dollars to build data centers overseas to reassure foreign customers that their information
is safe from prying eyes in the United States government.
And tech companies abroad, from Europe to South America, say they are gaining customers that
are shunning United States providers, suspicious because of the revelations by Edward J. Snowden
that tied these providers to the National Security Agency's vast surveillance program.
Even as Washington grapples with the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr. Snowden's leaks,
the more urgent issue, companies and analysts say, is economic. Tech executives, including Eric
E. Schmidt of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, are expected to raise the issue when they
return to the White House on Friday for a meeting with President Obama.
It is impossible to see now the full economic ramifications of the spying disclosures - in
part because most companies are locked in multiyear contracts - but the pieces are beginning
to add up as businesses question the trustworthiness of American technology products.
The confirmation hearing last week for the new N.S.A. chief, the video appearance of Mr.
Snowden at a technology conference in Texas and the drip of new details about government spying
have kept attention focused on an issue that many tech executives hoped would go away.
Despite the tech companies' assertions that they provide information on their customers only
when required under law - and not knowingly through a back door - the perception that they enabled
the spying program has lingered.
"It's clear to every single tech company that this is affecting their bottom line," said
Daniel Castro, a senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, who
predicted that the United States cloud computing industry could lose $35 billion by 2016.
Forrester Research, a technology research firm, said the losses could be as high as $180
billion, or 25 percent of industry revenue, based on the size of the cloud computing, web hosting
and outsourcing markets and the worst case for damages.
The business effect of the disclosures about the N.S.A. is felt most in the daily conversations
between tech companies with products to pitch and their wary customers. The topic of surveillance,
which rarely came up before, is now "the new normal" in these conversations, as one tech company
executive described it.
"We're hearing from customers, especially global enterprise customers, that they care more
than ever about where their content is stored and how it is used and secured," said John E.
Frank, deputy general counsel at Microsoft, which has been publicizing that it allows customers
to store their data in Microsoft data centers in certain countries.
At the same time, Mr. Castro said, companies say they believe the federal government is only
making a bad situation worse.
"Most of the companies in this space are very frustrated because there hasn't been any kind
of response that's made it so they can go back to their customers and say, 'See, this is what's
different now, you can trust us again,' " he said.
In some cases, that has meant forgoing potential revenue.
Though it is hard to quantify missed opportunities, American businesses are being left off
some requests for proposals from foreign customers that previously would have included them,
said James Staten, a cloud computing analyst at Forrester who has read clients' requests for
proposals. There are German companies, Mr. Staten said, "explicitly not inviting certain American
companies to join."
He added, "It's like, 'Well, the very best vendor to do this is IBM and you didn't invite them.'
"
The result has been a boon for foreign companies.
Runbox, a Norwegian email service that markets itself as an alternative to American services
like Gmail and says it does not comply with foreign court orders seeking personal information,
reported a 34 percent annual increase in customers after news of the N.S.A. surveillance.
Brazil and the European Union, which had used American undersea cables for intercontinental
communication, last month decided to build their own cables between Brazil and Portugal, and
gave the contract to Brazilian and Spanish companies. Brazil also announced plans to abandon
Microsoft Outlook for its own email system that uses Brazilian data centers.
... ... ...
Mark J. Barrenechea, chief executive of OpenText, Canada's largest software company, said
an anti-American attitude took root after the passage of the
Patriot Act, the counterterrorism law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks that expanded the
government's surveillance powers.
But "the volume of the discussion has risen significantly post-Snowden," he said. For instance,
after the N.S.A. surveillance was revealed, one of OpenText's clients, a global steel manufacturer
based in Britain, demanded that its data not cross United States borders.
RT USA
US technology giant IBM has fought back against speculation that the company cooperated with
the National Security Agency, publishing a letter to clients Friday in an attempt to distance
itself from the embattled intelligence agency.
"IBM has not provided client data to the NSA or any other government agency under any
surveillance program involving the bulk collection of content or metadata," Robert Weber,
the company's senior vice president of legal and regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post
quoted by Reuters.
"If the US government were to serve a national security order on IBM to obtain data from
an enterprise client and impose a gag order that prohibits IBM from notifying that client,
IBM will take appropriate steps to challenge the gag order through judicial action or other
means," he went on.
Victor Vonzell
First of all IBM did assist the Nazi's during WWII the book is in audio tape and in the
form of a book.
I myself have both but I would get tell anyone whom may want to know the story about
IBM and the Holocaust get the audio version of it to listen to the story told by the writer
of the story moved me very much!
To understand what was happening at the time that IBM and other such U.S. companies did
to assist the Nazi's will break your heart.
Plus we are seeing the raise of Nationalism in Ukraine and other western countries over
there.
We are looking at the start of another major war over there soon.
As the world recognizes the Day Against Cyber-Censorship, DW looks at a pair of countries
that have long struggled with the issue. Internet users in Iran and China have known for years
that they are under surveillance.
Revelations from former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden made it clear
to people around the world that their digital communications are being tracked and saved by
the US spy agency.
That was one of the reasons why the NSA and its British counterpart GCHQ were included on
the 2014 list of Enemies of the Internet
published on Wednesday (12.03.2014) by Reporters
Without Borders.
"The mass surveillance methods employed, many of them exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward
Snowden, are all the more intolerable because they will be used and indeed are already being
used by authoritarians countries such as Iran, China, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain
to justify their own violations of freedom of information," the report said. "How will so-called
democratic countries be able to press for the protection of journalists if they adopt the very
practices they are criticizing authoritarian regimes for?"
Inclusion on the press freedom group's list put the US and UK in the company of regimes in
Tehran and Beijing, which have both come under heavy international criticism for their long-time
censorship and surveillance of the Internet.
Inside the lobby of the CIA are inscribed words of scripture:
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
It could just as easily have been part of the pledge that CIA director John Brennan made
in wooing the Senate Intelligence Committee to confirm him just over a year ago. Tantalizing
as the promise of truth may have been, transparency has never been a virtue of the CIA, especially
when it comes to fessing up.
And now members of the same committee that confirmed Brennan, among them
a fiery Sen Diane Feinstein, are accusing the CIA of lawlessness and blatant intimidation
of Senate staffers, spying on them and threatening criminal prosecution for their pursuit of
documents related to the post-9/11 detention and interrogation programs.
The spy chief's
response to
the growing crisis has been a vintage Agency mix of denial and defiance – and yet John Brennan's
is a new kind of defiance for threatened architects of the CIA's dark arts, an unflinching brand
of outright denial. On Tuesday, he labeled some of Feinstein's allegations about the torture
program "entirely fiction", sloughing off accusations with his own Langley-style intimidation.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," he said of accusations that his agents had accessed
Senate computers.
This isn't just another Washington turf war or a real-life episode of Homeland. This
is more like the old Mad Magazine cartoon Spy v Spy writ large, with so many egos involved it's
near impossible to know who has the upper hand. But Langley, as ever, is writing the rules.
Or at least trying to.
The confrontation between that Senate Intelligence Committee and the Agency began as a fight
over an internal CIA report said to be sharply critical of Langley's record on those torture
programs – hardly an anomaly in the annals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, when
it comes to penning the history of the CIA, it is the CIA which has always insisted on holding
the bluntest of instruments.
NoOneYouKnowNow
KSurin
And yet the Senate must know that they're all spied on, as they've been spied on for
decades: "Tom Braden noted that CIA Director Allen Dulles and CIA counterintelligence chief
James Angleton used to discuss each morning, in the guise of fishing talk, the "take" from
the night before, i.e., intelligence gathered on prominent denizens of Capitol Hill from
CIA taps sprinkled throughout the community."
This is a fine thumbnail history of the CIA's systematic, decades-long history of avoiding
control, oversight, and the law:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/071009a.html
demorat
"... threatening criminal prosecution for their pursuit of documents related to the post-9/11
detention and interrogation programs..."
when you have to lie to make your case you have lost the argument.
nobody has threatened criminal prosecution.
the cia believes that senate staffers gained unauthorized access to cia documents for which
they lacked clearance. the evidence was the existence of these documents on cia computers
on cia premises which had been made available to senate staffers.
the cia has quite properly forwarded their concerns to the inspector general and the inspector
general has made no threats against anyone.
if the senate staffers have done no wrong they have nothing to fear from the inspector
general.
one suspects however, given feinstein's hissy fit, that senate staffers have misbehaved
in the democrat's election year jeremiad against the cia and our, because we the people
are ultimately responsible, post 9-11 interrogation programs.
Mike5000
demorat
Repeating CIA spin just makes it obvious how desperate and criminal the spooks are.
The senate staffers had the necessary clearance and the documents were given to them
by the CIA.
The CIA tried to intimidate them to cover up the CIA's crimes. And the CIA failed.
CraigSummers
"......And there is something endearingly naďve about a public, much less a
Senate, that still imagines a CIA capable of transparency. At Langley, lying is not a sin
– it is a form of tradecraft....."
The CIA and torture go hand in hand. Anyone who believes that the CIA just began torturing
terrorists after 911 is simply not living in the real world. The CIA has likely been associated
with torture - either training others, rendering prisoners or actually torturing suspects
- since they were created. They are paid to find out information. That is their job.
Senators and Representatives know this, but who really wants to open that can of worms
by suddenly demanding transparency? Of course, current and past Presidents knows as well.
monkie
CraigSummers
The CIA likes to write its own rules, but spying on Congress crosses a new line
you make good points, its a bit strange isnt it, to call this a new line that is crossed,
the CIA has been overthrowing democratically elected governments for more than a generation,
what did the "dear" senator believe the end result of that sort of entitlement would be?
UncleVanya
The CIA (allegedly) is a 'tool' of the American Pentagon - Industrial-Military Complex,
Big Pharma, Big Monsantos, Big Blackwaters, (Private Mercenary Corps) the state Department,
out of control and making up the rules as they go along.
The CIA has an appalling track record in Central and South America. so they now turn
their attention to try and 'regime change' states so that they will be compliant to the
New World Order of Multi-National Big Corps and Globalism of the stinking rotting banks.
The EU is probably run by these organisations as well, that is why they are trying to take
over the Ukraine. Ukrainian citizens are caught between the EU, NATO, the West and Putin's
Russian Federation, the FSB (old KGB) and Russia's concerns about "Being surrounded by NATO
and the Americans building bases in the old Eastern Warsaw Pact states.
You can make what you want about what is happening in the Ukraine.
GKJamesq
Maybe. Just as likely is that Feinstein, the consummate political performance artist,
is doing this for show. Nothing will change her role as protector of the national security
apparatus should any legislator dare to move substantively to rein it in. And with respect
to the torture report itself, the proof will be how hard, if at all, Feinstein will push
for full public disclosure. More generally, there is no evidence that any of the three branches
of government will gain meaningful control over the apparatus. There isn't even evidence
of a broad appetite for such control. Which is why, for the likes of Brennan, taking on
Congress is child's play.
lutesongs
Aren't we simply spectators of a very expensive spat between the Bush family's old guard
CIA versus the ambitious and overconfident new techies in the NSA with their Starship Enterprise
controlroom). They are public agencies competing for the same dwindling stack of dollars.
janvaneck lutesongs
Nothing "dwindling" about it.
And therein lies the problem. De-fund them both and fire everybody. Totally useless agencies
with immature and dangerous people that go play with the latest toys in secret buildings.
Ugh.
geronimo
The current CIA-NSA plus 'security' establishment in the US is simply the continuation
of the paranoia that produced the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, and most of what happened
in between.
America needs a demonic Other in order to establish its own identity and direction.
Usually the Other is external - 'Indians', Devil, England, USSR, Al Qaeda &c.
When it becomes internal, as now, with the CIA battling Congress, the President demonizing
the guy who revealed that US 'security' was the greatest danger to the American Constitution
- or back in the Civil War - you know God's Own Country is in a Real Mess.
Bill Clinton in his First Inaugural claimed that there was 'Nothing wrong with America
that what's right with America can't fix'.
Time will tell, but 150 years ago, the Civil War didn't matter too much to the Rest of
the World. Now, a dysfunctional, politically incoherent sole superpower in relative decline,
and paranoid once more about its identity, probably threatens the Rest of the World than
any other country on the planet.
Tom Czerniawski geronimo
Worry not. I'm sure there'll be a terrorist attack soon, by the great evil other. America
needs a distraction badly, and it gets what it wants.
Perhaps some evil Syrian terrorists (trained and armed by the CIA over the past few years)
will strike America again, and they'll all turn patriotic and unquestioning of their government
for a while, like after 9/11.
HauptmannGurski
Seems like a turf war out there. The CIA has just been so used over the decades that
they could do what they like(d) anywhere in the world and were not accountable to anyone,
least of all, of course, the taxpayers whose funds they spent. Some say they had gold to
sell or white powders, but there's never been any proof. Could be propaganda to paint the
image that they are very, very powerful and we all better behave or they're coming to get
us.
There is only one thing in this world that moves things, money. As long as the CIA has
unlimited funds, they will seek and succeed in having power to match, unlimited. Madame
Feinstein is really quaint, but as long as she does not do anything to reduce funding, she's
not credible. But maybe that could be a health hazard.
My projection would be that it'll go on for a long time yet. But when they have recreated
Dickensian circumstances (Thatcherism/Reaganomics) in too many countries, some bubble will
burst. I cannot say where, how, and when - but I can say it won't happen in my lifetime.
In the meantime the turf war for dominance, power, and control will continue.
JaitcH
Congress has at least a one-up on the CIA - money.
If the Evil 8, as the four senators and four representatives are called by the CIA, were
to do a line-by-line review of the CIA budget and carefully trim a few programs the message
would soon be read loud and clear down at Langley.
But the Congress is not filled with the smartest people. Think about the fact that the
NSA cannot limit it's META collection to potential bad guys so it is forced to collect everything.
Everything includes politicians, after all if they could exclude politicians they could
also exclude innocent communications, too.
Even Obama can't rely on normal RIM secured cell handset (a rating that Apple can't attain)
so the techies chose a German-made encryption chip, which has now been adopted by the German
government.
The CIA knows who is boss, and for Feinstein (the CIA's See-Hear-Speak No Evil Overseer)
to criticise them must be a first. The winners are the American people, the losers are the
US 'security community' and the US Executive branch.
It's the US three-legged division of power at work - belatedly.
MonotonousLanguor
" Like Wall Street, the CIA has remained largely beyond the reach of both the law and
sunlight."
We live after all in the Wall Street-Security-Military-Industrial Complex. It is the
Fourth and Most Powerful Branch of Government. The entire focus of the Government is to
Serve and Protect this system. Feinstein has been a cheerleader for years for this Branch
of Government. The hideous crimes of torture by the US or through it's proxies is Anti-America
period.
The program makes it easy for the president to spy on and blackmail his enemies
February 10, 2014 |
USA Today
Most of the worry about the National Security Agency's bulk interception of telephone calls,
e-mail and the like has centered around threats to privacy. And, in fact, the evidence suggests
that if you've got a particularly steamy phone- or Skype-sex session going on, it just might
wind up being shared by voyeuristic NSA analysts.
But most Americans figure, probably rightly, that the NSA isn't likely to be interested in
their stuff. (Anyone who hacks my e-mail is automatically punished, by having to read it.) There
is, however, a class of people who can't take that disinterest for granted: members of Congress
and the judiciary. What they have to say is likely to be pretty interesting to anyone with a
political ax to grind. And the ability of the executive branch to snoop on the phone calls of
people in the other branches isn't just a threat to privacy, but a threat to the separation
of powers and the Constitution.
As the Framers conceived it, our system of government is divided into three branches -- the
executive, legislative and judicial -- each of which is designed to serve as a check on the
others. If the president gets out of control, Congress can defund his efforts, or impeach him,
and the judiciary can declare his acts unconstitutional. If Congress passes unconstitutional
laws, the president can veto them, or refuse to enforce them, and the judiciary, again, can
declare them invalid. If the judiciary gets carried away, the president can appoint new judges,
and Congress can change the laws, or even impeach.
But if the federal government has broad domestic-spying powers, and if those are controlled
by the executive branch without significant oversight, then the president has the power
to snoop on political enemies, getting an advantage in countering their plans, and gathering
material that can be used to blackmail or destroy them. With such power in the executive,
the traditional role of the other branches as checks would be seriously undermined, and our
system of government would veer toward what James Madison in The Federalist No. 47 called "the
very definition of tyranny," that is, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive,
and judiciary, in the same hands."
That such widespread spying power exists, of course, doesn't prove that it has actually been
abused. But the temptation to make use of such a power for self-serving political ends is likely
to be very great. And, given the secrecy surrounding such programs, outsiders might never know.
In fact, given the compartmentalization that goes on in the intelligence world, almost everyone
at the NSA might be acting properly, completely unaware that one small section is devoted to
gather political intelligence. We can hope, of course, that such abuses would leak out, but
they might not.
Rather than counting on leakers to protect us, we need strong structural controls that don't
depend on people being heroically honest or unusually immune to political temptation, two characteristics
not in oversupply among our political class. That means that the government shouldn't be able
to spy on Americans without a warrant - a warrant that comes from a different branch of government,
and requires probable cause. The government should also have to keep a clear record of who was
spied on, and why, and of exactly who had access to the information once it was gathered. We
need the kind of extensive audit trails for access to information that, as the Edward Snowden
experience clearly illustrates, don't currently exist.
In addition, we need civil damages - with, perhaps, a waiver of governmental immunities -
for abuse of power here. Perhaps we should have bounties for whistleblowers, too, to help encourage
wrongdoing to be aired.
Is this strong medicine? Yes. But widespread spying on Americans is a threat to constitutional
government. That is a serious disease, one that demands the strongest of medicines.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee and the author of
The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself. He blogs at
InstaPundit.com.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers,
including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front
page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook
- Kentucky senator wants to end broad, non-targeted surveillance of Americans' communications,
including so-called 'metadata'
- He calls the NSA programs uncovered by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden 'precisely
the kind of overreach we fought a revolution over'
- 'Rand Paul v. Barack Obama' filed in federal court Wednesday morning
- Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who lost a gubernatorial bid in November,
is lead counsel for the plaintiffs – all 350,000 of them
- In addition to the president, Sen. Paul is suing the leaders of the NSA and FBI, and
the White House's director of national intelligence
- He's also raising money from his class-action participants for his next political campaign,
likely a presidential run in 2016
British spies have developed "dirty tricks" for use against nations, hackers, terror groups,
suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists
and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into "honey traps."
Documents taken from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden and exclusively obtained
by NBC News describe techniques developed by a secret British spy unit called the Joint Threat
Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG) as part of a growing mission to go on offense and attack
adversaries ranging from Iran to the hacktivists of Anonymous. According to the documents, which
come from presentations prepped in 2010 and 2012 for NSA cyber spy conferences, the agency's
goal was to "destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt" enemies by "discrediting" them, planting
misinformation and shutting down their communications.
Both PowerPoint presentations describe "Effects" campaigns that are broadly divided into
two categories: cyber attacks and propaganda operations. The propaganda campaigns use deception,
mass messaging and "pushing stories" via Twitter, Flickr, Facebook and YouTube. JTRIG also uses
"false flag" operations, in which British agents carry out online actions that are designed
to look like they were performed by one of Britain's adversaries.
In connection with this report, NBC is publishing documents that Edward Snowden took
from the NSA before fleeing the U.S., which can be viewed by clicking
here and
here. The documents are being published with minimal redactions.
The spy unit's cyber attack methods include the same "denial of service" or DDOS tactic used
by computer hackers to shut down government and corporate websites.
Other documents taken from the NSA by Snowden and previously published by NBC News show that
JTRIG, which is part of the NSA's British counterpart, the cyber spy agency known as GCHQ, used
a DDOS attack to shut down Internet chat rooms used by members of the hacktivist group known
as Anonymous.
Civil libertarians said that in using a DDOS attack against hackers the British government
also infringed free speech by individuals not involved in any illegal hacking, and may have
blocked other websites with no connection to Anonymous. While GCHQ defends the legality of its
actions, critics question whether the agency is too aggressive and its mission too broad.
Eric King, a lawyer who teaches IT law at the London School of Economics and is head of research
at Privacy International, a British civil liberties advocacy group, said it was "remarkable"
that the British government thought it had the right to hack computers, since none of the U.K.'s
intelligence agencies has a "clear lawful authority" to launch their own attacks.
"GCHQ has no clear authority to send a virus or conduct cyber attacks," said King. "Hacking
is one of the most invasive methods of surveillance." King said British cyber spies had gone
on offense with "no legal safeguards" and without any public debate, even though the British
government has criticized other nations, like Russia, for allegedly engaging in cyber warfare.
But intelligence officials defended the British government's actions as appropriate responses
to illegal acts. One intelligence official also said that the newest set of Snowden documents
published by NBC News that describe "Effects" campaigns show that British cyber spies were "slightly
ahead" of U.S. spies in going on offense against adversaries, whether those adversaries are
hackers or nation states. The documents also show that a one-time signals surveillance agency,
GCHQ, is now conducting the kinds of active espionage operations that were once exclusively
the realm of the better-known British spy agencies MI5 and MI6.
Ever since the first Snowden leaks about the way the NSA interpreted Section 215 of the PATRIOT
Act to allow it to collect all call records from various telcos, one of the key arguments
that has been made by the program's defenders is that it was necessary to have every single
call record to make the important connections between terrorists. Multiple officials have argued
that to find the "needle in the haystack" they need to be able to
collect the whole haystack. In fact, that was part of the argument made by the few judges
who have reviewed and approved this program. In the
very first FISC ruling that actually analyzed the legality of the program (as opposed to
earlier approvals that never bothered with an analysis), the court clearly indicated that it
was necessary to collect everything:
The government depends on this bulk collection because if production of the information
were to wait until the specific identifier connected to an international terrorist group
were determined, most of the historical connections (the entire purpose of this authorization)
would be lost. The analysis of past connections is only possible "if the Government has
collected and archived a broad set of metadata that contains within it the subset of communications
that can later be identified as terrorist-related." Because the subset of terrorist communications
is ultimately contained within the whole of the metadata produced, but can only be found
after the production is aggregated and then queried using identifiers determined to be associated
with identified international terrorist organizations, the whole production is relevant
to the ongoing investigation out of necessity.
That legal tapdancing aside, it basically argues that the only way this data makes sense is
if the NSA has all of it. Similarly, when Judge William Pauley
found the program legal late last year, he too relied on the argument that the NSA needed
all the data.And yet... it appears that they're actually not getting that much data. A new
report from the Washington Post claims that
the NSA is actually only getting between 20 to 30% of the data. The Wall Street Journal
rushed out a quick story claiming it's actually
less than 20%.
... ... ...
Either way, this whole thing actually shows just how ridiculous the NSA's claims are that
it absolutely needs all this data to keep us safe. The very fact that this report is coming
out in both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal at nearly the same time suggests
a stupid sort of PR attempt on the part of the NSA, which seems to think that after months of
insisting they need it all, they can now placate people by saying "well, we really only collect
about 20% of the data (though we're hoping to collect it all)." Not only does this actually
highlight the widespread compliance problems with this data, it further shows that the argument
that somehow collecting it all is necessary to keep us safe is just completely wrong.
International justice will lose all credibility if powerful states continue to benefit from
total impunity.
The case of the United States is emblematic: political aggression, inhuman treatment, illegal
detention are all "international crimes" for which the guilty must be pursued, according to
the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
John Martin
A Clear account of American misbehavior in the world August 18, 2008
International Justice and Impunity: The Case of the United States, edited by Nils Andersson,
Daniel Iagolnitzer and Diana G. Collier is must reading for anyone who is concerned about
the role the United States plays in the world today. The book covers the proceedings of
an international conference on the issue of impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity
that was held in Paris in September, 2005. It is divided into three parts: From Hiroshima
to Guantanmo, Humanitarian Law: Legal and Moral Values to Defend, and In Pursuit to an End
to Impunity. A total of 26 articles are presented.
The list of contributers includes Ramsey Clark, Samir Amin, William Blum, Stephane Hessel,
Jan Myrdal, Michaei Parenti, Tadatoshi Akiba, Antoine Bernard, and Genevieve Sevrin. These
individuals, both personally and as respresentatives of their organization, make a compelling
case that the United States has acted with impunity from at least the closing days of WW
II in order to impose its worldview on others. The violence that American has perpetrated
continues unabated and unpunished.
The book also provides a primer on international law and as such provides important information
for anyone seeking to understand humanitarian law from an international perspective.
While the book may be faulted as providing only the prosecution side of the case against
the United States, given that country's failure to acknowledge its crimes and its strong
propaganda machine, the book is an important and valuable commentary. Further, coming as
it does at the end of one of the most inhumane and unjust political administrations in American
history it can serve as a lesson to the next American government if it will only pay attention.
Midwest Book Review
Has the United States been ignoring international law? July 11, 2008
Has the United States been ignoring international law? "International Justice and Impunity:
The Case of the United States" claims so. Recent American acts in the middle east are skirting
the Geneva Conventions and even inducing the torture of prisoners - a black mark on the
country that used to be the champion of the United Nations. A scholarly work with contributions
from people in various levels of the government and from around the world, "International
Justice and Impunity: The Case of the United States" is highly recommended for community
library International Studies and Political Science collections.
The surveillance system, the surveillance state is a profit center for them.
The transcript of the following interview was exclusively arranged for Asia Times Online.
An audio file of the interview is published at the German financial web site "Die Metallwoche"
here.
Thomas Drake, born 1957, is a former senior executive at the US National Security Agency
who blew the whistle on a multi-billion dollar program fraud and cover up as well as the NSA's
secret unlawful surveillance program. The US Department of Justice prosecuted and indicted him
under the World War I-era Espionage Act in April, 2010, under 10 felony counts including that
he "mishandled documents". The case against him ultimately collapsed. He eventually pled to
one misdemeanor count for exceeding authorized use of a computer. He is a former airborne crypto-linguist
and electronic warfare mission crew supervisor. From 1991-1998 he worked at Booz Allen Hamilton
as a management, strategy and technology consultant and software quality engineer. In 2011,
Drake became the recipient of the Ridenhour Truth-Telling Prize and co-recipient of the Sam
Adams Award. He holds a Bachelor's and two Master's degrees as well as numerous graduate certificates.
... ... ...
But what I am encouraged by is the fact that articles are continuing to discuss other revelations,
the import of those regulations and what it means for the future and I think there is what I
call the second and third order effects - meaning that there are now other reporters and investigative
journalists who are now digging deep into other aspects of this even beyond the continuing disclosures
from Edward Snowden and are discovering a number of other areas that are causing trouble in
terms of just how far the United States have gone under the excuse and mantle of 9/11. Somehow
in order to make us all feel safe, in order to secure the nation we essentially have to seize
all information that we can get our hands on, whether it's directly, indirectly or through arrangements
with companies because it's the zero-sum game.
... ... ...
But what I am encouraged by is the fact that articles are continuing to discuss other revelations,
the import of those regulations and what it means for the future and I think there is what
I call the second and third order effects - meaning that there are now other reporters and investigative
journalists who are now digging deep into other aspects of this even beyond the continuing disclosures
from Edward Snowden and are discovering a number of other areas that are causing trouble in
terms of just how far the United States have gone under the excuse and mantle of 9/11.
Somehow in order to make us all feel safe, in order to secure the nation we essentially have
to seize all information that we can get our hands on, whether it's directly, indirectly or
through arrangements with companies because it's the zero-sum game.
... ... ...
That was the foundation, and so although you don't hear people referring to Echelon by name
today, clearly many follow-on programs either relied on Echelon ... or expanded upon it after
9/11. This was the system that was in place. That infrastructure that is behind Echelon did
not go away. That infrastructure was certainly used and leveraged post-9/11 and in many cases
for completely legitimate purposes in detecting threats to stability and order within and without
nations and across nations. Very legitimate and again, some people will point to abuses, but
this is one of the paradoxes of secret power.
Even when it has a legitimate purpose in providing for the common defense not just within
a nation but even across nations or through agreements with other nations it is right for abuse,
and there's what we call mission creep or requirements creep, that you will take on additional
activities under the cover of the legitimate activities for other purposes because you can and
it's in secret, and to recast a phrase from Catch 22 … the Joseph Heller novel, you know,
when you have this power, who's going to stop us?
... ... ...
Have you ever heard that NSA or other intelligence agency exploited the banks surveillance
version of PROMIS towards such an end?
TD: I've certainly heard of it, I just don't have any proof nor can I verify
or validate, but I will tell you one of the aspects that has not been fully disclosed although
I blew the whistle on it early on when I, within the system, had gone to key people within the
government particularly congressional intelligence committees regarding Stellar Wind. One of
the things that Stellar Wind did was actually without, again, without warrants, was gain
direct access to financial transaction information at the bank level, credit card level, and
this is extraordinary - these secret agreements were put into place regarding the flow of money.
This is shrouded in all kinds of secrecy ... but I was well aware what would that mean if
there were those within the system who chose to abuse it, you know far beyond the purpose of
tracking money laundering and things of that nature because this is all hidden; ... the
life blood of any economy is the money, the money flows, the money deposits, the investments.
I can't speak specifically to the allegations or assertions that you mentioned, but I can tell
you that I would not be surprised at all that it was used in that manner given my knowledge
of other abuses of information and systems that people in secret would use or have access to.
... ... ...
The money is the root of a lot of things. I mean I give people their due in terms of making
a profit and a living, but we're talking enormous amounts of money literally at the central
levers of power, and when it's done in secret away from the - well away - from the public, away
from reporters and journalists. There's a whole lot that I can do and it gives me enormous control
over others and ultimately what this is about is its power and control over others.
LS: A lot of this money ends up off-shore. Therefore, do you take those recent
off-shores leagues very seriously?
TD: Yes I do, but I think they're desperate to protect it because remember
the off-shore accounts are off-shore on purpose because they're "outside" the reach of traditional
US or even banking laws because it makes it much, much harder to go after them. Remember they
set up these special off-shore mechanisms specifically for the purpose of hiding and shadowing
it from other prying eyes so I'm not surprised at all. I mean, there have been whistleblowers
with the banking system and yet in some cases the whistleblowers themselves ended up in prison,
right? So the banks have an enormous amount to protect and hide.
I smile at all this because it's just, it's kind of the way things are, it's just - I continue
to say - at what cost to society at large. Others will say, "Well, hey it's whatever you can
get away with and if it's institutionalized and normalized then hey that's the way it is", and
you know this kind of power it looks just, let's just be real here. This kind of power doesn't
yield willingly; it's just not going to give itself up even when it's exposed.
... ... ...
LS: Yes, it surely is, but as you know Warren Buffett once talked about weapons of financial
mass destruction relating to collateralized mortgages. Do you think there are some equivalent
weapons of financial mass destruction at the disposal of those forces we are talking about and
are they employed?
TD: Yes, you will see like blockades, financial blockades or lots of restrictions placed
on trade. Yes, having these instruments of power especially over the flows of financial transactions
that course back and forth gives you the ability to effect certain outcomes, and if you decide
you want to shape world history then yes, you can withhold, withdraw or invest in ways that
have enormous power. I mean money is the life blood, money is such a critical life blood, for
finance, it's such a critical life blood of economies, and if you restrict it or expand it depending,
and if you marry that to political outcomes,you have, again, the phrase comes to mind, is enormous
leverage over, in some cases, over elections or even the way in which certain activities will
take place in other countries let alone your own.
Just look at the Wall Street Main Street dichotomy. I mean there is this Occupy Movement.
They're just highlighting the fact that you have this incredible redistribution of wealth and
what's been collateralized, what was collateralized was the future treasure. You basically collateralized
all the assets of the country ... essentially mortgaging your own future,but you collateralized
and leverage it on an enormous scale and [if] that's not sufficient then you create your own
collateral and then play that game - okay - which is like a Ponzi scheme on steroids at the
highest levels of government.
... ... ...
They're not doing this just because it's for national security. That's partly the argument
they already made with the senior executives of those companies which they brought in to provide
cover for it, but the reality of it is that they're getting rewarded. They're getting paid.
The surveillance system, the surveillance state is a profit center for them.
So they get to leverage it and they get the leverage and data twice, okay so speaking of
fungibility. They get to sell the subscribers their services for monthly fees or contracts and
then they get to turn around and provide the same information okay to the government and get
the government to pay for it as well and protect them. It's a protection, I mean it's a racket
because they have immunity from any law suits that are brought their way, especially class action.
... ... ...
The target country in which I became an expert over a number of years was East Germany, and
I listened in on state-level communications, military communications, you name it, and that
was just simply from what we can pick up, alright in many cases using highly specialized equipment
that was quite classified. I never imagined, to answer your question even more directly,
I never imagined that the template of the Stasi, the secret police in East Germany having the
motto to "to know everything", would be used as the playbook by the United States to create
the largest surveillance apparatus that the world has ever seen.
... ... ...
The Church Committee had an extraordinary series of hearings revealing and disclosing all the
abuses of power by the Nixon administration and even before the Nixon administration by previous
administrations. He, himself, warned the nation what would happen with the advances in technology
if we had to find ourselves in the abyss of a surveillance state, would we be able to pull ourselves
back out of it. [3] He left open the question as to whether or not we would.
I don't want to see the dark shadows, secrecy and surveillance becoming the norm. That's
not how we want to live as human beings. It means we're going backwards in terms of our
own progress in with respect of democracy and freedom and yes, too many, I mean too many, colleagues,
too many people I know - remember I'm in a very unique position. Right now of all the prosecutions
that have been brought forward by the Obama administration alone, unprecedented in US history,
more than all other administration combined, people charged under Espionage Act, are non-spy
activities. They are now considered more of a threat to the State than even the traditional
spy.
... ... ...
LS: Whose interests are ultimately served by secret intelligence agencies in
the West?
TD: Well, it's become less and less the citizens and has become more and more
a protectorate for the powers that be.
... ... ...
Well, out of World War II came the National Security Act in 1947, which created the CIA,
it created the Department of Defense, it created the Air Force. Five years later it was followed
by a secret directive, still secret to this day, signed by Truman creating the NSA, and so that
whole apparatus so closely aligned with the heart and center of power within the United States
but politically and financially and economically over time gives that enormous, enormous power
and with great power comes great responsibility
... ... ...
The problem is, when you enshroud it, wrap it in secrecy, then the opportunities for enormous
irresponsibility are there to do. They are there to take place, and that's precisely what's
happened, and it's serving private interests - it's clearly not serving public interest.
LS: In that regard, I would encourage our readers to take a look at the professional
background of, for example, Clarke Clifford, James Forrestal, Ferdinand Eberstadt, William J
Donavon, Allen Dulles, William A Jackson, Frank Wisner, William Casey, Stanley Sporkin, David
Dougherty and so on - because they all came from or went to Wall Street. Okay, but
this was just an aside. Coming back to my questions, what would you recommend what countries
outside the Anglo-American sphere should do in order to cope with the problems existing through
the activities by NSA & Co?
TD: I would separate from them. I really would. I would say, your nations own sovereignty
and your citizens have been compromised. You have to assume that. You unfortunately now, even
where there are legitimate agreements between governments and even those security services,
you cannot trust, you cannot, you just simply cannot because it's gone far beyond the bounds
as it were, beyond the bale of agreements that exist for legitimate purposes, in terms of threats
to international order and stability, and [I] recognize in saying that I'm saying a lot as an
American citizen.
You know can you trust certain providers of, and it's already happening and in fact US companies
are now complaining to the Obama administration that the secret agreements and arrangement and
the surveillance is causing them to lose business, and that begins to wake people up. Okay,
when you start losing business you're unable to compete, or it's increasingly challenging
to compete on the international market because others don't trust you. That means you're going
to lose business and you're going to lose jobs even when you have international reach. You'll
be frozen out.
Increasingly people will go to others, and I'll be asking in those countries - I'd be asking
hard questions, and I've said this to many, many reporters and journalists and particularly
from Germany, you've got to ask the hard questions of your own government. You've got to ask
the hard questions about what your own security services, what are they hiding? What do they
know but they don't wish their own public to know.
... ... ...
If you go back even in terms of the Founding Fathers, who were the elite of the day by the
way, okay. One of the reasons they want to protect their own, you know, their own minority,
they want to protect their own rights. Ironically enough they had to extend those rights to
everybody in order to protect their own. Interesting was that in terms of history but if you
go back ... there was great concern about what would happen to centralized power. History's
not kind. I thought in terms of Western history that you know go back to the Magna Carta. I
can't speak to other history in terms of Eastern and other cultures, but I can certainly speak
to Western democracy based on, you know, based on Greek democracy in Athens right?
Although a lot of that is shrouded in myth in legend and a lot of it is not true but what
about the Magna Carta? You know that was a huge breath of fresh air that the king simply couldn't
rule because they said that God said they could, and gave them special dispensation. The serfs
and the subjects did have rights, okay. Well we're going backwards. It's somehow because it's
national security, wow I guess I never. I mean look - somehow we've turned this terrorism thing
into justification because, guess what, meanwhile you have all the other secret stuff going
on.
LS: Since you mentioned Joseph Goebbels, we know for sure that he analyzed
public relations techniques in the US and it seems a little bit that in turn some people in
America have studied his propaganda techniques.
TD: Again, I shudder when I'm going to be responding because I just, I shiver
at the reality of the dark side of history from the 20th century.
LS: Sometimes one of the frightening thoughts that I have is that America needs
to take a look in the mirror and see that they have become pretty much Nazi-like and what they
fought. They have fought, and they [have] become pretty similar to the enemy.
TD: Actually, unfortunately, there's a number of people who actually admire
the Nazis. They admire that enormous power, and it's like, well because we're America - I mean,
this is the thing that really, really concerns me, that somehow because we're America we have
special protection. We are exceptional but that allows us the license, it gives, it grants us
license to engage in the very practices the Nuremberg Trials put in stark relief.
I've spoken with one of the lead lawyers on the Nuremberg Trials. It was an extraordinary
conversation over many hours. I just never imagined that here we are engaging in the equivalent.
Somehow, you know, I'm just following orders. That's the very thing that I took exception to,
was orders. Somehow the orders took priority over rule of law, and then rule of law got corrupted
by passing and enabling that legislation, like article 48 [which allowed the president, under
certain circumstances, to take emergency measures without the prior consent of the Reichstag]
in the Weimar Republic.
The history here is really unnerving, and that somehow we're immune to that. We're not immune
at all. We're not and you're already seeing a police state, a virtual. I've called, I've said
a digital fence already surrounds us.
We saw the physical wall of East Germany to keep people in, right? Well, we already have
a digital fence that tracks us. I'll just give you an example of this, Lars: When I go home
I often go home from the beltway around Washington DC. I head north on Route 29 and the main
intersection just north of the beltway. When I first started going that way I would just see
all these, what would appear to be random flashes at the intersection. It dawned on me shortly
thereafter that was no random flashes. Those are simply cameras taking pictures of license plates,
24/7 365, and there's many, many of those cameras set-up all around DC.
What does it mean to be tracked and monitored like this? I mean ultimately it's about control,
about social control. It's about knowing where people are anytime you want to know about them.
I don't want to live in that kind of a society because it has an extraordinary corrosive effect,
yet the technology is benign.
It's always about what do you use it for, right? Those cameras aren't there to detect red-light
violators, you know running red lights. It's simply to take pictures of license plates. I didn't
opt in, but I guess the license plate is public because I can actually see it on the car. So
if I'm not in public then its fair game, but what am I doing with that information? See it comes
back to what do I do with the information, and if we don't stand up for, you know, people -
a vacuum is created. If you don't stand up for your sovereign rights, there are those who will
take them away from you and they love having power.
It's a pathological condition when you actually derive pleasure from having power over
others. You will use power. You will turn, you will manipulate. You will turn them into subjects
and objects of your attention. That's not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means
you're now subject to and subject of somebody else and the last time I checked in human history
it's a form of slavery or indentured servant or a serf.
... ... ...
LS: Well, it was said that the next time fascism comes, it comes in the form
of anti-fascism. [4]
TD: Usually it does and wrapped in the robes of moral rectitude and patriotism.
Sources
1. Compare Jason Leopold: "Revealed: NSA pushed 9/11 as key 'sound bite' to justify surveillance",
published
here.
2. Regarding the Echelon Interception System, see for example this report of the European Parliament
that was published on July 11, 2001,
here.
3. US Senator Frank Church said in 1975: "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny
total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the National Security Agency] and
all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision,
so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
4. It was the Italian author Ignazio Silone who said that if fascism would come back, it wouldn't
say: "I am fascism"; it would say: "I am anti-fascism."
Lars Schall is a German financial journalist.
(Copyright 2013 Lars Schall)
Jan 09, 2014 |
DW.DE
It was Thursday afternoon and the first week after the winter break – and it was hardly a
surprise that only few seats were filled in room JAN 2Q2 at the European Parliament (EP) in
Brussels. But Claude Moraes, British MEP from the group of Socialists and Social Democrats (S&D),
woke the European Union from its winter slumber with a bang.
The rapporteur of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) had come
to present the
52-page draft report on the committee's inquiry into the NSA spying scandal and its implications
on European citizens. The draft report is hard on all sides - including governments and companies
in the EU.
"Collect, store, analyze"
The report summarizes the findings from the past six months. On page 16, the text says that
the recent revelations in the press by whistleblowers and journalists, together with the expert
evidence given during the inquiry, have resulted in "compelling evidence of the existence of
far-reaching, complex and highly technologically advanced systems designed by US and some Member
States' intelligence services to collect, store and analyze communication and location data
and metadata of all citizens around the world on an unprecedented scale and in an indiscriminate
and non-suspicion-based manner."
Claude Moraes' draft report is a sweeping blow targeting both US and EU authorities
The authors explicitly point at Britain's signals intelligence agency GCHQ and its upstream
surveillance activity (Tempora program) as well as decryption program (Edgehill), and add that
it's quite likely that programs of a similar nature as the NSA's and GCHQ's exist - "even if
on a more limited scale" - in countries like France, Germany and Sweden.
Claude Moraes and his fellow committee members drew their conclusions from hearing a variety
of experts during the second half of 2013 - among them technology insiders, civil rights activists,
legal experts, US politicians, former secret service employees and spokespeople of companies
such as Microsoft and Yahoo. Journalist Glenn Greenwald also testified. He was the first to
publish former NSA contractor Edward Snowden's revelations.
Fight against terrorism = a fig leaf
The fight against terrorism, according to the committee's draft report, can "never in itself
be a justification for untargeted, secret and sometimes even illegal mass surveillance programs."
Moraes and his fellow rapporteurs showed themselves unconvinced that the NSA's only goal is
the fight against terrorism, as the US government has claimed. In their draft report, European
politicians suspect that there are instead "other power motives," such as "political and economic
espionage."
EU buildings' IT infrastructure must be better protected against political espionage, demand
MEPs
Moraes wrote that "privacy is not a luxury right, but the ... foundation stone of a free
and democratic society." Above all, the draft report condemns the "vast, systemic, blanket collection
of the personal data of innocent people."
The authors add that mass surveillance has potentially severe effects on the freedoms of
the press, thought and speech, as well as a significant potential for abuse of the information
gathered against political adversaries. In a nutshell, Moraes said, surveillance programs are
"yet another step towards the establishment of a fully fledged preventive state."
During Thursday's session, MEPs repeated the call to halt negotiations on the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership with the United States. But Kilian Froitzhuber from German-language
blog netzpolitik.org said he doesn't
believe that talks will be suspended. He told DW he was glad, however, to see that "in the draft
report, the committee announces that the European Parliament won't sign any agreement that doesn't
explicitly protect the civil liberties of European citizens."