NSA logging all domestic calls

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa...s.ap/index.html

 

Disturbing. Seriously. This government is getting away with far too much in this surveillance. It needs to stop.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Makes me want to go back to Qwest and my provider.

 

And in related news, the Justice probe into NSA domestic wiretapping has ended because the NSA refused to grant security clearance to the Jiustice lawyars pursuing the case.

 

Convenient for the NSA, no?

 

:banghead :banghead

[Balta1701]

So if they are calling this the "Terrorist surveillance program" and it's intercepting every call in the U.S., does that mean that everyone in the U.S. is a terrorist?

 

It's also worth noting I think that USA Today is strongly suggesting that the government is basically bribing the telecom companies to go along with this, and even the government itself is unwilling to let this be seen in court because they know it'll lose.

 

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

 

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

 

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

 

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

[vandy125]

This is disturbing. I am glad that I use Qwest for phone and internet. I wonder what other "secret" programs are out there that they are tracking us with.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It was telling to see how fast the administration got GWB on camera to address this (which of course he didn't really do. . . "After 9-11. . . go after the terrorists. . . leaking about this program gives aid to the enemy. . . ").

 

Their strategy is usually to see how a story gets picked up first before throwing President 31% in front of a camera to take a stab at damage control.

 

This could end up being very big – maybe as big as the warrantless surveilance should have been.

 

Maybe also big enough to scuttle the hayden CIA nomination. I read that a number of Hill strategy meetings today on getting the Hayden nomination through have been cancelled. Maybe coincidental that it happened after the NSA data mining story broke, but i don't think that's likely.

 

Any chance of a recess appointment of the CIA top spot during the Memorial Day holiday?

[southsider2k5]

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this... Doesn't anyone remember Echelon?

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this... Doesn't anyone remember Echelon?

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

 

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

Former CIA director and current Presidential Medal of Freedom winner George Tenet, testifying under oath before Congress in 2000.

[Rex Kickass]

It was telling to see how fast the administration got GWB on camera to address this (which of course he didn't really do. . . "After 9-11. . . go after the terrorists. . . leaking about this program gives aid to the enemy. . . ").

 

Their strategy is usually to see how a story gets picked up first before throwing President 31% in front of a camera to take a stab at damage control.

 

This could end up being very big – maybe as big as the warrantless surveilance should have been.

 

Maybe also big enough to scuttle the hayden CIA nomination. I read that a number of Hill strategy meetings today on getting the Hayden nomination through have been cancelled. Maybe coincidental that it happened after the NSA data mining story broke, but i don't think that's likely.

 

Any chance of a recess appointment of the CIA top spot during the Memorial Day holiday?

 

Not likely. I almost get the impression that this is a guy nominated to flame out. Give the GOP a chance to stand up and say no - distance themselves from a President who's becoming more and more toxic.

[southsider2k5]

Former CIA director and current Presidential Medal of Freedom winner George Tenet, testifying under oath before Congress in 2000.

 

And? I guess no one has ever lied under oath before? Please. You can not convince me that people have the technology to do this within our spy agencies and do not do so.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this... Doesn't anyone remember Echelon?

Seems more like a scaled down TIA than an Echelon to me. And Congress denied funding for TIA. Maybe that is why this program has been secret?

[YASNY]

Regarding Hayden:

 

Here's the link to whole article

 

This week, following Hayden’s nomination, Editor & Publisher republished the Hayden-Landay exchange under the headline, “Hayden, Likely Choice for CIA Chief, Displayed Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment at Press Club.” And just yesterday, Fred Kaplan wrote an article for Slate in which he relates part of the exchange. He then comments, "This is startling. Elsewhere in the speech, Hayden said, 'If there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth.' And he doesn't know that it requires ‘probable cause’ as the criterion for ‘reasonable’ search? ... Hayden may have dug his own hole with this one.” The speech will probably be reprinted by many other critics in coming weeks, and an enterprising member of the Senate Intelligence Committee may very well quote the speech during Gen. Hayden’s confirmation hearing. But such critics would read the Fourth Amendment as poorly as Landay did.

 

As the Fourth Amendment provides (emphasis added),

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

On its face, the amendment only provides for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, while it later provides that no warrant shall issue without “probable cause.” Landay and Hayden’s critics mistakenly apply the “probable cause” requirement to the “searches and seizures” provision. That reading is erroneous on its face; to apply the amendment’s warrant requirements to the searches and seizures clause would also require that searches be supported “by oath or affirmation,” with the objects of the search described in advance. Hayden’s reading—that searches must only be “reasonable”—is the better reading.

 

Hayden’s critics’ mistaken reading of the Fourth Amendment is not even supported by the Supreme Court’s decisions. True, the Supreme Court, in interpreting and applying the searches and seizure provision, has in many cases equated “probable cause” with “reasonableness,” even in cases where a warrant is not required. But the Court has explicitly warned that the two terms are not equivalent in all circumstances. In the Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), for example, the Court roundly rejected Hayden’s critics’ reading of the amendment (emphasis in original):

 

Warrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause. But a warrant is not required to establish the reasonableness of all government searches; and when a warrant is not required (and the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable cause is not invariably required either. A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.”

 

Critics can argue whether the government’s surveillance program satisfies the “special needs” requirement spelled out by the Supreme Court, but they can’t argue that the Fourth Amendment (either on its face or as interpreted by the Supreme Court) requires that all searches be supported by probable cause. Such criticism of Gen. Hayden would be both unwarranted and unreasonable.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Not likely. I almost get the impression that this is a guy nominated to flame out. Give the GOP a chance to stand up and say no - distance themselves from a President who's becoming more and more toxic.

 

Possibly, but I don't see the White Hous in its current scramble mode being that calculating. And if there is a recess appointment, I don't necessarily think by then Hayden will be the guy.

[Balta1701]

Seems more like a scaled down TIA than an Echelon to me. And Congress denied funding for TIA. Maybe that is why this program has been secret?

Actually it sounds exactly like Echelon to me, except Echelon directed at U.S. citizens with no FISA warrant.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Actually it sounds exactly like Echelon to me, except Echelon directed at U.S. citizens with no FISA warrant.

Which is why it DIDN'T sound like Echelon to me – no ovversight checks against domestic surveilance.

[Queen Prawn]

Quick question on this. With all this logging, are they listening in to calls or just quantifying who call who and how many times? How can you find out if they are listening to your calls?

Edited May 11, 2006 by Queen Prawn

[NorthSideSox72]

Whatever. Echelon, TIA, I don't really care. This particular thing is absolutely dead wrong. if Echeclon was similar, then it was dead wrong too.

[Balta1701]

Quick question on this. With all this logging, are they listening in to calls or just quantifying who call who and how many times? How can you find out if they are listening to your calls?

Based on this report, I think the way to find out if they're logging your calls is to find out if your phone company is participating in the program. If they are, I think the answer is yes, the government has your call records.

 

Some of those helpful bloggers are starting to call up their companies and ask if they're participating. Verizon thus far is saying emphatically they're not a part of it, and USA Today says Qwest refused to participate. If you have AT&T/SBC for your phone service though, along with a bunch of others, the answer looks to be yes.

 

And from what I can tell, it looks like they're at least doing some processing on the content of the calls, otherwise this program doesn't do anything. So there's probably not a physical person listening to your call unless something you say triggers some sort of electronic alarm for something that they're looking out for.

 

Whatever. Echelon, TIA, I don't really care. This particular thing is absolutely dead wrong. if Echeclon was similar, then it was dead wrong too.

The Echelon program was basically, as far as I understand it, a worldwide effort to intercept communications for U.S. intelligence purposes. Basically, the NSA could intercept anything they wanted as long as it didn't have either side of the call going to a U.S. citizen. If 1 side was a U.S. citizen, the government still needed a FISA warrant.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records

 

This morning, USA Today reported that three telecommunications companies – AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth – provided “phone call records of tens of millions of Americans” to the National Security Agency. Such conduct appears to be illegal and could make the telco firms liable for tens of billions of dollars. Here’s why:

 

1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703©, provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

 

2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

 

(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

 

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

 

In other words, for every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math.

 

– Peter Swire and Judd Legum

[BigSqwert]

Quick question on this. With all this logging, are they listening in to calls or just quantifying who call who and how many times? How can you find out if they are listening to your calls?

Don't worry. As long as you're not a terrorist it doesn't matter if they listen in on your calls. Hell, they should also be allowed to open your mail and read your emails.

[Balta1701]

So what you're saying is...I can't wait to join in the class action suit.

[Balta1701]

So, it appears that The Trib thinks this is a big enough deal to publish tomorrow's editorial by like 6:00 CST today.

 

This program seems to be far broader than the NSA surveillance of communications between the U.S. and overseas, which prompted great concern when it was revealed last December. Though that program is more intrusive-it involves eavesdropping on conversations-it is at least focused on communications between people in the U.S. and people abroad who are suspected of being connected to terrorism.

 

That overseas surveillance effort, this page has argued, could be justified and extended if it included some modest judicial oversight.

 

But this vast mining of domestic phone records … this is something else.

 

Alarmed members of Congress demanded answers on Thursday. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would summon the phone companies providing the information-AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth-for a hearing. ``We're really flying blind on the subject [of domestic surveillance] and that's not a good way to approach the Fourth Amendment and the constitutional issues involving privacy,'' Specter said.

 

Yes, we're flying blind.

 

Why would the government seek and store records of every telephone call to your doctor, your lawyer, your next door neighbor?

 

Tell us.

[southsideirish71]

I could care less if the government knows who I call or who calls me or if they listen to my calls. I have always assumed that the shared media transport of our phone system is not a private system. I say things on the phone that I could care less that the world knows. You realize that when you talk on your cell phone that the signal is not point to point, that a doppler affect happens and the signal kind of goes everywhere. The weak levels of encryption and data obstification can be cracked by a person with minimal technology skills, a credit card, and your local Radio Shack. There are websites where people can just buy your records. If you use Vonage or any other VOIP technology, your phone calls go out unencrypted and can be hijacked just like any other data stream.

 

I would suggest that if you are so worried and paranoid then invoke some technology and you can sleep better at night.

 

Phones.

 

Use something like Skype, which is from the creators of KaZaa. It uses a peer to peer model that is based on an encrypted data stream with a AES cipher. Then again if the person on the other side isnt using Skype then you are screwed. So make sure everyone you know uses it and the big bad government cant get you.

 

Use point to point encryption software such as stunnel and use a chat client to connect a voip call.

 

Data

 

Your email is open the minute you click send. Its in clear text and anyone can intercept it. If your payload or your message is to sensitive. Use a strong bit cipher encryption package to encrypt your email. You can use PGP, however I would suggest using Twofish, Blowfish, or AES to encrypt your payload.

 

Also make sure that you md5 hash your entire operating system, and burn the hashes to a RO drive. Then compare your binaries to it for verification that the government didnt hijack your system. Also make sure that you are running a rootkit revealer to make sure your application layer is not lying to you.

 

In reality, we all take risks when we use electronic mediums for communications. I would be more worried about spyware, and people trying to make your system into a botnet than I would be on the NSA listening to my wife and her mom discuss recipes.

 

 

In the end we are talking about pedabytes if not exabytes of data. Search filters are used most likely with some artificial intelligence to get hits. This is a mountain of data, so really do you think that there is an analyst that has enough time to sit and listen to you blabbing to your friend about the sox or how your day was, probably not.

Edited May 12, 2006 by southsideirish71

[EvilMonkey]

IS anyone worried that the phone company has these records to turn over in the first place? If you are all so worried about the eeeevil government spying on you, what's to prevent the eeevil corporations from accessing the same info that they already had, BEFORE the government asked for it? They sell our info to telemarkets for a profit, whats to prevent them from using the info for more nefarious reasons?

[Queen Prawn]

Don't worry. As long as you're not a terrorist it doesn't matter if they listen in on your calls. Hell, they should also be allowed to open your mail and read your emails.

 

LOL! I pity whoever it is that has to log my calls, emails, etc. They have to be bored outta their gourds logging my calls, emails, etc.

[Soxy]

They're only doing it so they can find out who wins American Idol before the rest of America. . .