Prism and Verizon surveillance discussion thread

[Cain]

Hi, I've merged these topics into one, so we can better keep track of the discussion.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Yay smart mods!

[Left]

Hi, I've merged these topics into one, so we can better keep track of the discussion.

Thanks


...Entirely too-high signal-to-noise ratio to protect us all from terrorism.

...Considering that, besides donating to your group of choice fighting against this shit...

Signal to noise ratio.

...How could we, as concerned citizens amp the noise aspect of the raw data?
Since apparently we need minding For Our Own Good...
...I try that myself with marketing software BTW, I use a fake birthdate, age, and zipcode whenever I join a new site.

[Cain]

So, according to the White House, "It [the Verizon phone program] allows counter terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States".

But the collection order only allows metadata to be collected.  That means no listening in on the content of the calls, no subscriber names.  I mean, you can do a hell of a lot with that metadata, once run through other surveillance programs, which is exactly what is occuring here. 

Here is an example of what you can do with metadata:

What can you learn with metadata but no content?

A lot. In fact, telephone metadata can be more useful than the words spoken on the phone call. Starting with just one target's phone number, analysts construct a social network. They can see who the target talks to most often. They can discern if he's trying to obscure who he knows in the way he makes a call; the target calls one number, say, hangs up, and then within second someone calls the target from a different number. With metadata, you can also determine someone's location, both through physical landlines or, more often, by collecting cell phone tower data to locate and track him. Metadata is also useful for trying to track suspects that use multiple phones or disposable phones.

In regards to PRISM:

The presentation claims PRISM was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a "home-field advantage" due to housing much of the internet's architecture. But the presentation claimed "Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage" because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US.

Actually, with FISA, all the government has to do is:

(A) a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation (other than a threat assessment) conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, such things being presumptively relevant to an authorized investigation if the applicant shows in the statement of the facts that they pertain to—
(i) a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

(ii) the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; or

(iii) an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; and

(B) an enumeration of the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General under subsection (g) that are applicable to the retention and dissemination by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of any tangible things to be made available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation based on the order requested in such application.

OMG onerous restrictions!  "We need to tap these phones because, uh, Al-Qaeda and Iran and stuff."

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Here in Turkey, they can jail reporters (OMGZ TERRORISTS), they can shoot protesters in the face with cans of tear gas, they can arrest people for posting on social media... but they still need a warrant to looks at your phone records.



The world just gets more and more fucked up.

Ironically, I talked with an AKP supporter yesterday, he said basically the same thing Dok's dad said. He didn't approve of the situation in Turkey, but you gotta support your side or "those other guys" will take over.

[Cain]

I asked some Obama supporters for their comments, Dok.  They said this is totally different to Bush, because Bush broke the law, whereas Obama used changed laws and statutes to undertake it.

I then asked them if ethics are determined by legality and I got banned.

Yes, I am no longer welcome in democratic circles, myself.  My father and I enjoy a particularly ferocious disagreement on this sort of thing.

He's not HAPPY about any of this shit, but he feels he has to hold up the side, if you catch my drift.

A good son would respect that and leave the subject alone.  A bad son would take advantage of him having his hands occupied by holding up the side.

Dok,
Picked his pockets while he stood there and watched.

Yeah, I know people like that.  I understand the impulse, I would not be keen to see the Republicans in power again either, but with this kinda shit going on, who can tell the difference anymore.

Greenwald has been advised by his legal friends, of which, as a former lawyer, he has many, that the administration may come after him now.  I don't know if they mean pulling a Julian Assange on him, or a lesser, but equally vile amount of intimidation and coercion on him and his sources.  Greenwald lives at least part of the time in Brazil, which might mean surveillance can occur against him and spurious accusations about foreign powers can be bandied around freely.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

If they take Greenwald I am storming the fucking Bastille.

[Cain]

Greenwald's kinda a douche, IMO.  Prime example.

Which is not to say if the US government tries to go after him in any way it wont be a majorly dickish move that I will criticize endlessly.  Nor does it invalidate his reporting.  But I just wanted to put it out there.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Some of my best friends are douches. Most of them, actually.

[Cain]

Do some of your best friends also defend apologists for foreign dictators engaging in massacres because their critics attack their shitty sponsors?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Do some of your best friends also defend apologists for foreign dictators engaging in massacres because their critics attack their shitty sponsors?

I couldn't follow your link to read the article, sorry. Some websites have decided our household is for assholes and won't load ever.

[Cain]

It's hard to believe that this is really Glenn Greenwald since he makes statements here that are easily debunked and patently false, whereas the real Glenn Greenwald has a reputation for operating on a more sophisticated and intelligent level. On the other hand, this comment did come from Brasil, and even Glenn has been known to have his down days, so we're going to go on the assumption that this really is Glenn Greenwald and respond as follows:

1. Where is the "blatant misinformation" in this article? Please back up your wildly unfounded assertions. Are you saying that there is no evidence whatsoever that up to 70-plus were massacred in Kazakhstan? Or that Chevron is a partner with the state oil company whose subsidiary sparked the massacre? Please explain your accusation, specify exactly where in the article this "blatant misinformation" is.

2. We are aware of your little mini-spat with Joshua Foust, and we are aware that you would and should normally be on the opposite end of a defense-industry flak, warmonger and attack-troll like Foust. That is why we were deeply bothered—we would say "shocked" but we're growing used to this, and have added Greenwald's reaction to the growing ledger we're keeping on Glenn Greenwald's questionable ethical behavior. A principled Glenn Greenwald would not prioritize the petty hurt feelings of a defense-industry flak over defending the massacred victims in Kazakhstan and the role Chevron has in Kazakhstan's state oil firm—instead, what we see here is this real-world, petty Glenn Greenwald placing his own hurt feelings above his supposed principles, forming common cause even with a warmonger and massacre-denier. That's pathetic—Greenwald's fans expect him to show a greater commitment to his principles than this.

3. Greenwald falsely claims that The Nation "had to retract" our piece about the TSA and John Tyner. In fact, the Nation did not retract that piece. The Nation did not retract the piece because all of the facts were correct. That is why the piece is still up. Will Glenn Greenwald now apologize for falsely claiming that The Nation retracted our article?

The Nation apologized to Tyner (but did not retract the piece), and the only reason why the Nation apologized was because it was forced to by a hysterical campaign led by Glenn Greenwald and his libertarian comrades. The Nation apologized without knowing that Greenwald was privately coaching Tyner at the time that Greenwald attacked Ames and Levine's article in The Nation. We repeat: Greenwald was coaching Tyner, according to email threads leaked to The eXiled, and Greenwald did not disclose this. Why didn't Glenn Greenwald disclose his relationship to John Tyner?

Moreover, Tyner has since admitted that he deceived the public and that he had in fact planned his "Don't Touch My Junk" stunt–the Nation apology was based on believing Tyner hadn't planned his "Don't Touch My Junk" stunt. Did Glenn Greenwald know that Tyner was deceiving the public when he claimed he hadn't planned his "Don't Touch My Junk" stunt? If so, why didn't Greenwald disclose this? Why didn't Glenn Greenwald disclose his own deep libertarian ties, and ties to the Koch-founded Cato Institute, going back several years, when Greenwald attacked our article exposing the Koch-funded libertarians leading and fronting the anti-TSA media hysteria? Why hasn't Glenn Greenwald apologized for not disclosing his conflict-of-interest? Also, John Tyner has come out in favor of privatizing the TSA, against unions, against gay marriage, against drug legalization and as a follower of racist libertarian Murray Rothbard, promoter of David Duke's candidacy, contradicting the progressive Jimmy Stewart image that Greenwald painted in his article defending the Koch-linked libertarians behind the anti-TSA media hysteria.

4. Glenn Greenwald claiming he only wrote "2 freelance articles" for the Cato Institute is offensive it's so utterly absurd. We know it. Glenn knows it. For one thing, one of those "free-lance articles" was nothing resembling a "freelance article"—it was a major policy whitepaper, a one-year massive report that included numerous speaking engagements on behalf of the Koch-founded Cato Institute. And let's not forget, the Cato Institute was originally founded as The Charles Koch Foundation of Wichita. We merely copied the phrase "Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute" from the description used by numerous mainstream media outlets across the country over the past few years.

[...]

But even if Greenwald's ties to the Cato Institute didn't go deeper, the idea that taking money from the Koch brothers for a one-year drug-decriminalization project shouldn't be disclosed each time Greenwald attacks progressives while defending the Kochs'/libertarians' pet projects—as when Greenwald defended Citizens United, much to progressives' confusion, or when Greenwald attacked our article in The Nation about the Koch-funded libertarians leading the anti-TSA union campaign—is plain wrong and ridiculous. Payoffs and influence-peddling usually come in more subtle forms than payments marked "BRIBE." In Russia, bankers would pay off government ministers not by giving them money earmarked "Vzyatka" but rather by giving them a "book advance" on a completely unrelated, intellectual endeavor. But even in Russia, bribery schemes like that, which clearly tie the recipient of that money to the donor of that money, led to ministers being fired. So when the Koch brothers pay for Greenwald to spend a year on a policy whitepaper, even on something as "benign" as a drug policy whitepaper, we don't see it as benign when Greenwald simultaneously protects libertarians, defends Citizens United, and attacks journalism critical of Koch-funded libertarians.

We find it disturbing that Greenwald never said a single critical word about his benefactors the Koch brothers until a Weekly Standard interview with Charles Koch in March 2011, which finally elicited a mildly critical column (by Greenwald's standards) of his Koch benefactors.

We believe that when you take money from the Koch brothers and a notorious corporate-rightwing libertarian outfit like the Cato Institute, that you should disclose your conflict-of-interest when you attack the credibility of journalists who expose Koch-linked libertarians running the TSA media hype, as we did at The Nation, or when Greenwald defends the Citizens United decision against progressives, as Greenwald did in 2010, much to progressives' confusion.

5. As to why we never referred to Glenn Greenwald as "Glenn Greenwald of the ACLU" the reason is simple: We (and many other progressives) find it far more disturbing that Greenwald would take money from the Koch brothers and not disclose this relationship when discrediting critics of Koch-backed libertarians, or when defending Citizens United as Glenn has done. And we find it disturbing that when principles are at stake–a defense industry flak covering for a Central Asian despot's massacre– versus Glenn's personal hurt feelings and his friendships to fellow libertarians, Glenn Greenwald sides with his fellow libertarians and his petty feelings over principles.

UPDATE! Holy shit folks, you can't make this up...Glenn Greenwald–we swear this is true, we'll post a screenshot shortly–anyway, Glenn Greenwald actually tweeted to his libertarian comrade Joshua Foust his righteous indignation at The Almighty Exiled Censor's patented troll-trapping policy. Greenwald called our policy, and we quote, "the most basic violation of ethical Internet journalism imaginable". That's Greenwald of the Cato Institute to Joshua Foust of the American Security Project, agreeing that the most, very worst of all journalistic violations is not lying, not taking money under the table, but what the Almighty Exiled Censor does here on these pages, fully disclosed. You can't make this up, folks. Oh, how the mighty have fallen... More coming...

[Cain]

Hello to all our bot friends at Amazon Technologies who are keeping an eye on this thread.

Does the NSA have a backdoor into your servers as well?

[Cain]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/nsaverizonobama-connecting-the-dots-or-not.html

Suggestions that the Verizon data collection may be a form of a stealth kickback - the government pays Verizon for its data, Verizon continues to fund Democratic politicians with deals like the one Obama got in 2012 - which put more than $450,000 in his campaign coffers.

I doubt it's the whole story, but it's a worthwhile reminder that there is a political economy and, while mostly underreported on, it does exercise subtle influence over such decisions.

[Cain]

The UK's GCHQ also accesses PRISM, it seems

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism

The UK's electronic eavesdropping and security agency, GCHQ, has been secretly gathering intelligence from the world's biggest internet companies through a covertly run operation set up by America's top spy agency, documents obtained by the Guardian reveal.

The documents show that GCHQ, based in Cheltenham, has had access to the system since at least June 2010, and generated 197 intelligence reports from it last year.

The US-run programme, called Prism, would appear to allow GCHQ to circumvent the formal legal process required to seek personal material such as emails, photos and videos from an internet company based outside the UK.

The use of Prism raises ethical and legal issues about such direct access to potentially millions of internet users, as well as questions about which British ministers knew of the programme.

In a statement to the Guardian, GCHQ, insisted it "takes its obligations under the law very seriously".

And here is an excellent example of what you can do with metadata

http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention