Prism and Verizon surveillance discussion thread

[Cain]

Antifascist Calling has been working the "using surveillance for corporate espionage" angle on the latest PRISM revelations:

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2013/07/documents-show-undersea-cable-firms.html

Reporting by Australian journalists confirm information published July 6 by The Washington Post. There we learned that overseas submarine cable companies doing business in the United States must maintain "an internal corporate cell of American citizens with government clearances," a cadre of personnel whose job is to ensure that "when US government agencies seek access to the massive amounts of data flowing through their networks, the companies have systems in place to provide it securely."

As Bloomberg reported last month, "thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with US national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence."

It's a two-way street, Bloomberg noted. Firms providing "US intelligence organizations with additional data, such as equipment specifications" use it "to help infiltrate computers of its adversaries." In return, "companies are given quick warnings about threats that could affect their bottom line." Such sensitive data can also be used to undermine the position of their foreign competitors.

We now know, based on documents provided by Snowden, that the "infiltration" of computer networks by US secret state agencies are useful not only for filching military secrets and mass spying but also for economic and industrial espionage.

That point was driven home more than a decade ago in a paper prepared by journalist Duncan Campbell for the European Parliament.

"By the end of the 1990s," Campbell wrote, "the US administration claimed that intelligence activity against foreign companies had gained the US nearly $150 billion in exports."

"Although US intelligence officials and spokespeople have admitted using Comint [communications intelligence] against European companies . . . documents show that the CIA has been directly involved in obtaining competitor intelligence for business purposes."

At the time the Telstra pact was signed, the Australian telecommunications and internet giant was "50.1% owned" by the Australian government. Reach Global Services, is described in the document as "a joint venture indirectly owned 50% by Telstra" and "50% owned" by Hong Kong's Pacific Century CyberWorks Limited (PCCW).

With controlling interest in more than 40 undersea fiber optic cables, and with landing rights in global markets that include Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, North America and Europe, the joint venture was then the largest commercial telecommunications carrier in Asia with some 82,000 kilometers of undersea cables. Reach also operates international satellite systems that cover two-third's of the planet's surface.

Such assets would be prime targets of "Five Eyes" spy agencies under terms of the UKUSA Communications Intelligence Agreement.

Telstra and PCCW restructured their partnership in 2011, with the Australian firm now controlling the lion's share of an undersea cable network that stretches "more than 364,000 kilometres and connects more than 240 markets worldwide," the South Morning China Post reported. Inevitably, the restructuring will afford the US government an even greater opportunity for spying.

Network security agreements hammered out among undersea cable firms and the US government have profound implications for global commerce. Their geopolitical significance hasn't been lost on America's closet "allies."

[Bu🤠ns]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/spygate-snooping-standing/


Feds say NSA snooping cannot be challenged in court

"... the alleged metadata program is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Most fundamentally, the program does not involve "searches" of plaintiffs' persons or effects, because the collection of telephony metadata from the business records of a third-party telephone service provider, without collecting the contents of plaintiffs' communications, implicates no 'legitimate expectation of privacy' that is protected by the Constitution," (.pdf) David S. Jones, an assistant United States attorney, wrote U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley in a Thursday filing.

Because the Fourth Amendment is not breached, it follows that the First Amendment is not violated either, Jones wrote.

The government said that, despite it scooping up telephony metadata from "certain telecommunication service providers," it only queried the database using "300 unique identifiers" searching for terrorist activity last year under a standard of "reasonable, articulable suspicion." Because the ACLU cannot prove that any of its employees were surveilled under the program, they have no right to sue under a legal concept known as standing.

[Doktor Howl]

So you can't stop them from spying unless you can prove that they're spying on YOU.

Principles?  What?

[Cain]

Hahaha.  The White House are so pissed at Justin Amash, they got the NSA's Director to give him a four hour private bollocking:

n a reflection of how seriously the Obama administration is taking Amash's amendment to the defence department's annual appropriations bill – which unexpectedly cleared the House rules committee late on Monday – the NSA's director, General Keith Alexander, spent four hours on Capitol Hill on Tuesday in closed-door meetings Amash described to the Guardian as a "general informational briefing".

i.e; a bollocking.

Now what could Amash have done to earn such personal attention?

The White House urged House members to vote against a measure from Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, that would stop the NSA siphoning up the telephone records of millions of Americans without suspicion of a crime.

"This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open or deliberative process," said the statement emailed from the White House late on Tuesday in anticipation of a House debate on the Amash measure scheduled for Wednesday.

However, the blunt approach of a secret mass surveillance program is an informed, open and deliberative process?  The mind boggles.

[McGrupp]

Hahaha.  The White House are so pissed at Justin Amash, they got the NSA's Director to give him a four hour private bollocking:

n a reflection of how seriously the Obama administration is taking Amash's amendment to the defence department's annual appropriations bill – which unexpectedly cleared the House rules committee late on Monday – the NSA's director, General Keith Alexander, spent four hours on Capitol Hill on Tuesday in closed-door meetings Amash described to the Guardian as a "general informational briefing".

i.e; a bollocking.

Now what could Amash have done to earn such personal attention?

The White House urged House members to vote against a measure from Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, that would stop the NSA siphoning up the telephone records of millions of Americans without suspicion of a crime.

"This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open or deliberative process," said the statement emailed from the White House late on Tuesday in anticipation of a House debate on the Amash measure scheduled for Wednesday.

However, the blunt approach of a secret mass surveillance program is an informed, open and deliberative process?  The mind boggles.

Wow. Be interesting how the vote goes today.

I like how the new approach to any questions of a spy programs value is to just make it secret. "No no, we're holding back the floodgates of terror from your doorstep. We just can't give you any evidence of that because it's secret. Also it's totally constitutional for reasons that are also secret."

[Cain]

Vote failed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/nsa-surveillance-amash-amendment-narrow-defeat

The first major legislative challenge to the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records from millions of Americans was defeated by only a narrow margin on Wednesday, sending a clear signal to the Obama administration that congressional anger about the extent of domestic surveillance is growing.

Despite a concerted lobbying effort by the White House and senior intelligence figures, the attempt to rein in the NSA failed by only 12 votes. The final vote was 205 in favor and 217 against, exposing deep restiveness in Congress over the wisdom and constitutionality of the bulk surveillance on Americans less than two months after the Guardian exposed it, thanks to leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden. A shift of seven votes would have changed the outcome.

Civil libertarians disappointed by the vote promised not to relent in opposing what they consider an unnecessary and unconstitutional violation of Americans' privacy.

The principal author of the effort, Michigan Republican Justin Amash, said he introduced his amendment to the annual Defense Department appropriations bill to "defend the fourth amendment, to defend the privacy of each and every American."

In opposition, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers of Michigan, asked: "Have we forgotten what happened on September 11?" Swiping at Amash, who was supported by an online campaign, he asked: "Are we so small we can only look at how many Facebook likes we have?"

There were some unlikely alliances: the Democratic minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, voted against the amendment with Michele Bachmann, a Tea Party Republican. John Boehner, the House speaker, found himself in the rare position of being on the same side as President Obama.

Legislators had only two minutes to vote for the Amash amendment.

[Cain]

So, I checked on this "2 minutes to vote" thing, because I was intrigued.

According to Dr Richard Forno's cyberlaw blog hosted at Stanford:

Congress routinely schedules votes of varying durations.  A "15-minute" or "5-minute" vote is the norm.  However, to garner enough support to pass a controversial bill, the majority may hold a vote open for hours if necessary. By contrast, it may compress the duration of a voting window to procedurally challenge those seeking to vote in favour of controversial items it disagrees with. That's a classic Congressional technique.

I thought this might be the case, but I was glad to have it clarified.  One wonders if the scheduling of votes comes under the functions of the all powerful Rules Committee?

Rather than being responsible for a specific area of policy, as most other committees are, it is in charge of determining under what rule other bills will come to the floor. As such, it is one of the most powerful committees and is often described as "an arm of the leadership" and as the "traffic cop of Congress." A rule is a simple resolution of the House of Representatives, usually reported by the Committee on Rules, to permit the immediate consideration of a legislative measure, notwithstanding the usual order of business, and to prescribe conditions for its debate and amendment.

Matt Taibbi, when interviewing Bernie Sanders, has explained in great depth how manipulation of the Rules Committee happened during the Bush Presidency, allowing the House to pretty much stymie any Democratic initiative through excessive abuse of the functions of the Committee.

Pete Sessions, the Rules chairman, voted against the Amash amendment, as did Louise Slaughter, the ranking Democratic member.  Out of the thirteen members of the Committee, seven were against the Amash amendment.  And the Rules committee reports directly to the Speaker of the House, who, as we know, is also against the amendment.

[McGrupp]

Darn, I had some naive hope it might go through. Messed up about the rules committee stuff.

I love this line:

In opposition, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers of Michigan, asked: "Have we forgotten what happened on September 11?" Swiping at Amash, who was supported by an online campaign, he asked: "Are we so small we can only look at how many Facebook likes we have?"

That's always meant to be the argument winner. From now until forever.

I just don't buy the idea that the NSA is holding back the floodgates of hordes of terrorists from us. They always seem to make it sound that if we allow them to loosen their grip at all then cities will start exploding.

[Doktor Howl]

Darn, I had some naive hope it might go through. Messed up about the rules committee stuff.

I love this line:

In opposition, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers of Michigan, asked: "Have we forgotten what happened on September 11?" Swiping at Amash, who was supported by an online campaign, he asked: "Are we so small we can only look at how many Facebook likes we have?"

That's always meant to be the argument winner. From now until forever.

I just don't buy the idea that the NSA is holding back the floodgates of hordes of terrorists from us. They always seem to make it sound that if we allow them to loosen their grip at all then cities will start exploding.

Mike Rogers, have we forgotten what happened in 1787?   

[Cain]

Mike Rogers cannot remember what happened last week.

He claimed that NSA wiretapping had disrupted 50+ terrorist plots in the US.  Problem: the NSA claimed it disrupted 13 (and those claimed are dubious - but you already knew that).

[Cain]

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/07/25/obama-promises-disappear-from-web/

Change.gov, the website created by the Obama transition team in 2008, has effectively disappeared sometime over the last month.

While front splash page for for Change.gov has linked to the main White House website for years, until recently, you could still continue on to see the materials and agenda laid out by the administration. This was a particularly helpful resource for those looking to compare Obama's performance in office against his vision for reform, laid out in detail on Change.gov.

According to the Internet Archive, the last time that content (beyond the splash page) was available was June 8th -- last month.

Why the change?

Here's one possibility, from the administration's ethics agenda:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

Well, isn't that kinda embarrassing.

[Left]

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/07/25/obama-promises-disappear-from-web/

Change.gov, the website created by the Obama transition team in 2008, has effectively disappeared sometime over the last month.

While front splash page for for Change.gov has linked to the main White House website for years, until recently, you could still continue on to see the materials and agenda laid out by the administration. This was a particularly helpful resource for those looking to compare Obama's performance in office against his vision for reform, laid out in detail on Change.gov.

According to the Internet Archive, the last time that content (beyond the splash page) was available was June 8th -- last month.

Why the change?

Here's one possibility, from the administration's ethics agenda:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

Well, isn't that kinda embarrassing.

[LMNO]

Yup. That's gonna get spread around.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/07/25/obama-promises-disappear-from-web/

Change.gov, the website created by the Obama transition team in 2008, has effectively disappeared sometime over the last month.

While front splash page for for Change.gov has linked to the main White House website for years, until recently, you could still continue on to see the materials and agenda laid out by the administration. This was a particularly helpful resource for those looking to compare Obama's performance in office against his vision for reform, laid out in detail on Change.gov.

According to the Internet Archive, the last time that content (beyond the splash page) was available was June 8th -- last month.

Why the change?

Here's one possibility, from the administration's ethics agenda:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

Well, isn't that kinda embarrassing.

[Telarus]