Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (2 Viewers)

[tom22406]

NY Judge Rules NSA Phone Surveillance Is Legal



NEW YORK December 27, 2013 (AP)

A federal judge in New York has ruled that a massive federal phone-tracking program is legal.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley issued the decision Friday. He says the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred.

He says the government learned from its mistake and "adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world." He said the data-collection program was part of the adjustment.

He dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-judge-rules-nsa-phone-surveillance-legal-21348222

 

[Politician Spock]

NY Judge Rules NSA Phone Surveillance Is LegalNEW YORK December 27, 2013 (AP)

A federal judge in New York has ruled that a massive federal phone-tracking program is legal.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley issued the decision Friday. He says the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred.

He says the government learned from its mistake and "adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world." He said the data-collection program was part of the adjustment.

He dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-judge-rules-nsa-phone-surveillance-legal-21348222

It does not shock me at all that the article does not mention Judge Pauly referring to the Constitution even once.

 

[tom22406]

NY Judge Rules NSA Phone Surveillance Is LegalNEW YORK December 27, 2013 (AP)

A federal judge in New York has ruled that a massive federal phone-tracking program is legal.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley issued the decision Friday. He says the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred.

He says the government learned from its mistake and "adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world." He said the data-collection program was part of the adjustment.

He dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-judge-rules-nsa-phone-surveillance-legal-21348222

It does not shock me at all that the article does not mention Judge Pauly referring to the Constitution even once.

Not shocked at all.I guess this is all leading up to the SCOTUS giving the thumbs up to all this at some point.

 

[timschochet]

I'm relieved and excited by Judge Pauly's ruling, because it gives judicial credence to "my side" of the argument. I have stated all along that I believed, based on everything that I've read, that the collection of bulk data is constitutional. I seem to be the only person in this thread willing to make that argument (now that Dr. Detroit has left the discussion.) Nice to know a federal judge agrees with me.

No doubt this will go to the Supreme Court, and a final decision will be made there. I am hopeful of the result.

 

[Slapdash]

Excited? What a tool.

 

[tom22406]

Excited? What a tool.

I think the relieved part bothered me the most.

 

[timschochet]

Excited? What a tool.

Why is it toolish to be excited about this? I honestly believe, as I have stated, that this is a necessary means to fight terrorism, and that it has prevented terrorist attacks. I believe that, in the whole, it makes us safer, without seriously infringing on our freedoms. I realize that you disagree with this. But given the fact that I believe what I do, why shouldn't I be excited that terrorism is going to continue to be less likely?

 

[jonessed]

NY Judge Rules NSA Phone Surveillance Is LegalNEW YORK December 27, 2013 (AP)

A federal judge in New York has ruled that a massive federal phone-tracking program is legal.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley issued the decision Friday. He says the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred.

He says the government learned from its mistake and "adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world." He said the data-collection program was part of the adjustment.

He dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-judge-rules-nsa-phone-surveillance-legal-21348222

It does not shock me at all that the article does not mention Judge Pauly referring to the Constitution even once.

Not shocked at all.I guess this is all leading up to the SCOTUS giving the thumbs up to all this at some point.

Given the make-up of the SC I find that unlikely.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think the "makeup" of the Supreme Court will have too much bearing on this particular issue. I'm a civil libertarian on most issues, a big time supporter of the ACLU (including financial contributions) yet I disagree with them on this issue. Rich Conroy is a conservative on most issues, yet he profoundly disagrees with what should be the "conservative" position on this issue, as do many other conservatives in this forum. I have a feeling the SC will be the same way. The result is unpredictable.

 

[jonessed]

I don't think the "makeup" of the Supreme Court will have too much bearing on this particular issue. I'm a civil libertarian on most issues, a big time supporter of the ACLU (including financial contributions) yet I disagree with them on this issue. Rich Conroy is a conservative on most issues, yet he profoundly disagrees with what should be the "conservative" position on this issue, as do many other conservatives in this forum. I have a feeling the SC will be the same way. The result is unpredictable.

You are about as libertarian as TGunz.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think the "makeup" of the Supreme Court will have too much bearing on this particular issue. I'm a civil libertarian on most issues, a big time supporter of the ACLU (including financial contributions) yet I disagree with them on this issue. Rich Conroy is a conservative on most issues, yet he profoundly disagrees with what should be the "conservative" position on this issue, as do many other conservatives in this forum. I have a feeling the SC will be the same way. The result is unpredictable.

You are about as libertarian as TGunz.

In some ways Tgunz is very libertarian.

 

[jonessed]

I don't think the "makeup" of the Supreme Court will have too much bearing on this particular issue. I'm a civil libertarian on most issues, a big time supporter of the ACLU (including financial contributions) yet I disagree with them on this issue. Rich Conroy is a conservative on most issues, yet he profoundly disagrees with what should be the "conservative" position on this issue, as do many other conservatives in this forum. I have a feeling the SC will be the same way. The result is unpredictable.

You are about as libertarian as TGunz.

In some ways Tgunz is very libertarian.

Good. We finally agree on something.

 

[timschochet]

jonnesed, I still consider myself libertarian (small "l") for a variety of reasons, including:

free trade

open immigration

women's rights to their own bodies

legalization of most drugs

equality of rights of gays

religious freedom

All of the above items are very important to me. The bolded items are fought for by the ACLU, which is why I support them. However, in recent years the Libertarian movement has fought for things which I do not support, or which I find largely irrelevant:

The right to drink whatever size soda you want

The right to own whatever gun you want without restriction and without registration

Individual privacy rights no matter what the threat to security

Business rights no matter what the threat to the environment

I don't consider these issues to be essential to the libertarianism that I have always believed in. If that makes me, in the eyes of several people such as yourself, less a libertarian, so be it.

 

[Slapdash]

Excited? What a tool.

Why is it toolish to be excited about this? I honestly believe, as I have stated, that this is a necessary means to fight terrorism, and that it has prevented terrorist attacks. I believe that, in the whole, it makes us safer, without seriously infringing on our freedoms. I realize that you disagree with this. But given the fact that I believe what I do, why shouldn't I be excited that terrorism is going to continue to be less likely?

If you want to keep believing the proven lies from the administration about how these programs have prevented attacks, that is on you. To be excited by the legitimazation of constant, total electronic surviellence of citizens is very creepy. You are disturbing, useful idiot.

 

[Slapdash]

jonnesed, I still consider myself libertarian (small "l") for a variety of reasons, including:

free trade

open immigration

women's rights to their own bodies

legalization of most drugs

equality of rights of gays

religious freedom

All of the above items are very important to me. The bolded items are fought for by the ACLU, which is why I support them. However, in recent years the Libertarian movement has fought for things which I do not support, or which I find largely irrelevant:

The right to drink whatever size soda you want

The right to own whatever gun you want without restriction and without registration

Individual privacy rights no matter what the threat to security

Business rights no matter what the threat to the environment

I don't consider these issues to be essential to the libertarianism that I have always believed in. If that makes me, in the eyes of several people such as yourself, less a libertarian, so be it.

Nobody gives a ####

 

[timschochet]

jonnesed, I still consider myself libertarian (small "l") for a variety of reasons, including:

free trade

open immigration

women's rights to their own bodies

legalization of most drugs

equality of rights of gays

religious freedom

All of the above items are very important to me. The bolded items are fought for by the ACLU, which is why I support them. However, in recent years the Libertarian movement has fought for things which I do not support, or which I find largely irrelevant:

The right to drink whatever size soda you want

The right to own whatever gun you want without restriction and without registration

Individual privacy rights no matter what the threat to security

Business rights no matter what the threat to the environment

I don't consider these issues to be essential to the libertarianism that I have always believed in. If that makes me, in the eyes of several people such as yourself, less a libertarian, so be it.

Nobody gives a ####

Jonessed made a comment, so I responded.

 

[timschochet]

Excited? What a tool.

Why is it toolish to be excited about this? I honestly believe, as I have stated, that this is a necessary means to fight terrorism, and that it has prevented terrorist attacks. I believe that, in the whole, it makes us safer, without seriously infringing on our freedoms. I realize that you disagree with this. But given the fact that I believe what I do, why shouldn't I be excited that terrorism is going to continue to be less likely?

If you want to keep believing the proven lies from the administration about how these programs have prevented attacks, that is on you. To be excited by the legitimazation of constant, total electronic surviellence of citizens is very creepy. You are disturbing, useful idiot.

The bolded is highly subjective. i dispute both points.

 

[Slapdash]

Excited? What a tool.

Why is it toolish to be excited about this? I honestly believe, as I have stated, that this is a necessary means to fight terrorism, and that it has prevented terrorist attacks. I believe that, in the whole, it makes us safer, without seriously infringing on our freedoms. I realize that you disagree with this. But given the fact that I believe what I do, why shouldn't I be excited that terrorism is going to continue to be less likely?

If you want to keep believing the proven lies from the administration about how these programs have prevented attacks, that is on you. To be excited by the legitimazation of constant, total electronic surviellence of citizens is very creepy. You are disturbing, useful idiot.

The bolded is highly subjective. i dispute both points.

Not really. But we're all aware that no amount of leaks will shake your faith in Obama's lies.

 

[Slapdash]

The White House's own investigation found no evidence these programs have thrawted any attacks, but Tim from the Internet disagrees.

 

[timschochet]

The White House's own investigation found no evidence these programs have thrawted any attacks, but Tim from the Internet disagrees.

This is not exactly true:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html?hp&_r=0

The presidential review group took a middle ground, though it seemed to lean toward Judge Leon’s position. It said the security agency “believes that on at least a few occasions” the program “has contributed to its efforts to prevent possible terrorist attacks, either in the United States or somewhere else in the world.”

But then:

But it added that its own review suggested that the program “was not essential to preventing attacks,” and that less intrusive measures would work.

So that part agrees with your interpretation. It all depends on your POV. However according to Judge Pauley:

In the months before Sept. 11, he said, the N.S.A. intercepted seven calls made to a Qaeda safe house in Yemen from the United States. They were from Khalid al-Mihdhar, who was living in San Diego and would become one of the hijackers.

But the security agency “could not capture al-Mihdhar’s telephone number,” the judge wrote, and “N.S.A. analysts concluded mistakenly that al-Mihdhar was overseas and not in the United States.”

“Telephony metadata would have furnished the missing information and might have permitted the N.S.A. to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the fact that al-Mihdhar was calling the Yemeni safe house from inside the United States,” Judge Pauley wrote.

The judge is making a reasonable argument here that the metadata might have prevented 9-11.

 

[Slapdash]

The White House's own investigation found no evidence these programs have thrawted any attacks, but Tim from the Internet disagrees.

This is not exactly true:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html?hp&_r=0

The presidential review group took a middle ground, though it seemed to lean toward Judge Leon’s position. It said the security agency “believes that on at least a few occasions” the program “has contributed to its efforts to prevent possible terrorist attacks, either in the United States or somewhere else in the world.”

But then:

But it added that its own review suggested that the program “was not essential to preventing attacks,” and that less intrusive measures would work.

Yes, it is :

Michael J. Morell, a former acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said that although the panel of independent experts did not find evidence that the National Security Agency’s efforts had helped stop a terrorist attack, the ability to monitor whether foreign terrorists were calling Americans remained important

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/us/politics/debating-the-nsas-data-collection-and-a-panels-findings.html?hpw&rref=us

Or:

Has the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records actually helped to prevent terrorist attacks?

No, according to the 300-page report issued this month by a panel of legal and intelligence experts appointed by President Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/opinion/this-week-mass-surveillance-wins.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0&pagewanted=print

So they think it is important (it being a limited piece of the gigantic scope of things the NSA is doing), but can find no evidence of anything the agency has done anything to stop attacks More lies from the administration.

 

[timschochet]

The White House's own investigation found no evidence these programs have thrawted any attacks, but Tim from the Internet disagrees.

This is not exactly true:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html?hp&_r=0

The presidential review group took a middle ground, though it seemed to lean toward Judge Leon’s position. It said the security agency “believes that on at least a few occasions” the program “has contributed to its efforts to prevent possible terrorist attacks, either in the United States or somewhere else in the world.”

But then:

But it added that its own review suggested that the program “was not essential to preventing attacks,” and that less intrusive measures would work.

Yes, it is :

Michael J. Morell, a former acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said that although the panel of independent experts did not find evidence that the National Security Agency’s efforts had helped stop a terrorist attack, the ability to monitor whether foreign terrorists were calling Americans remained important

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/us/politics/debating-the-nsas-data-collection-and-a-panels-findings.html?hpw&rref=us

Or:

Has the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records actually helped to prevent terrorist attacks?

No, according to the 300-page report issued this month by a panel of legal and intelligence experts appointed by President Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/opinion/this-week-mass-surveillance-wins.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0&pagewanted=print

So they think it is important (it being a limited piece of the gigantic scope of things the NSA is doing), but can find no evidence of anything the agency has done anything to stop attacks More lies from the administration.

Suppose you personally were convinced that was true, Slapdash. Would it change your mind?

 

[Statorama]

Great news!

NSA has backdoor access to Apple iPhones

The U.S. National Security Agency has the ability to snoop on nearly every communication sent from an Apple iPhone, according to leaked documents shared by security researcher Jacob Appelbaum and German news magazine Der Spiegel.

An NSA program called DROPOUTJEEP allows the agency to intercept SMS messages, access contact lists, locate a phone using cell tower data, and even activate the device’s microphone and camera.

According to leaked documents, the NSA claims a 100 percent success rate when it comes to implanting iOS devices with spyware. The documents suggest that the NSA needs physical access to a device to install the spyware—something the agency has achieved by rerouting shipments of devices purchased online—but a remote version of the exploit is also in the works.

Appelbaum says that presents one of two possibilities:

“Either [the NSA] have a huge collection of exploits that work against Apple products, meaning they are hoarding information about critical systems that American companies produce, and sabotaging them, or Apple sabotaged it themselves,” Appelbaum said at the Chaos Communication Conference in Hamburg, Germany.

 

[Slapdash]

Of course the NSA has the ability to exploit any piece of electronics with a way to send information back to them.

 

[tom22406]

NSA has been exploiting WiFi and Ethernet networks

Darshak Parikh
Dec 30, 2013

According to a series of recently leaked documents, the NSA (National Security Agency) has been hijacking people’s WiFi and Gigabit Ethernet networks using tools called Nightstand and Firewalk respectively.


Nightstand is a software tool that runs on a laptop. The document states that Nightstand injects packets into your network from as far as eight miles away, using drones. It has been tested to successfully attack the devices running Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.0 and 6.0 on Windows 2000 and XP. However, it is worth noting that this document dates back to 2008, which means it is quite likely that Nightstand has been upgraded to target newer versions of IE and Windows, or even other browsers and operating systems. It has already been deployed and is being actively updated.

Firewalk is an implant that lives right inside your RJ45 or USB connector. It injects packets into your Gigabit Ethernet network and manipulates both incoming and outgoing traffic. Firewalk has been designed to circumvent all firewalls and air gaps, which makes it even more dangerous than Nightstand.

As of August 2008, a prototype of Firewalk was ready. So again, it is likely that it has been further developed and deployed already.

What this means?If one of these tools has been deployed into your network, it means that the NSA decides what you surf and what you don’t. As more leaks surface, we wonder up to what depths the NSA can stoop.

http://www.muktware.com/2013/12/nsa-exploiting-wifi-ethernet-networks/18450

 

[Politician Spock]

Of course the NSA has the ability to exploit any piece of electronics with a way to send information back to them.

But don't you feel so much safer?

Totally worth it. TOTALLY!

 

[Slapdash]

The White House's own investigation found no evidence these programs have thrawted any attacks, but Tim from the Internet disagrees.

This is not exactly true:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html?hp&_r=0

The presidential review group took a middle ground, though it seemed to lean toward Judge Leon’s position. It said the security agency “believes that on at least a few occasions” the program “has contributed to its efforts to prevent possible terrorist attacks, either in the United States or somewhere else in the world.”

But then:

But it added that its own review suggested that the program “was not essential to preventing attacks,” and that less intrusive measures would work.

Yes, it is :

Michael J. Morell, a former acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said that although the panel of independent experts did not find evidence that the National Security Agency’s efforts had helped stop a terrorist attack, the ability to monitor whether foreign terrorists were calling Americans remained important

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/us/politics/debating-the-nsas-data-collection-and-a-panels-findings.html?hpw&rref=us

Or:

Has the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records actually helped to prevent terrorist attacks?

No, according to the 300-page report issued this month by a panel of legal and intelligence experts appointed by President Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/opinion/this-week-mass-surveillance-wins.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0&pagewanted=print

So they think it is important (it being a limited piece of the gigantic scope of things the NSA is doing), but can find no evidence of anything the agency has done anything to stop attacks More lies from the administration.

Suppose you personally were convinced that was true, Slapdash. Would it change your mind?

Another meaningless distraction from the issue.

 

[Slapdash]

NSA has been exploiting WiFi and Ethernet networks



Darshak Parikh
Dec 30, 2013

According to a series of recently leaked documents, the NSA (National Security Agency) has been hijacking people’s WiFi and Gigabit Ethernet networks using tools called Nightstand and Firewalk respectively.


Nightstand is a software tool that runs on a laptop. The document states that Nightstand injects packets into your network from as far as eight miles away, using drones. It has been tested to successfully attack the devices running Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.0 and 6.0 on Windows 2000 and XP. However, it is worth noting that this document dates back to 2008, which means it is quite likely that Nightstand has been upgraded to target newer versions of IE and Windows, or even other browsers and operating systems. It has already been deployed and is being actively updated.

Firewalk is an implant that lives right inside your RJ45 or USB connector. It injects packets into your Gigabit Ethernet network and manipulates both incoming and outgoing traffic. Firewalk has been designed to circumvent all firewalls and air gaps, which makes it even more dangerous than Nightstand.

As of August 2008, a prototype of Firewalk was ready. So again, it is likely that it has been further developed and deployed already.

What this means?If one of these tools has been deployed into your network, it means that the NSA decides what you surf and what you don’t. As more leaks surface, we wonder up to what depths the NSA can stoop.

http://www.muktware.com/2013/12/nsa-exploiting-wifi-ethernet-networks/18450

I'm so excited the government can control my network to prevent terrorists!

 

[tom22406]

The NSA Intercepts Laptops Purchased Online to Install MalwareAccording to a new report from Der Spiegel on the National Security Agency's top team of hackers, the agency intercept electronics purchased online before delivery to install malware and other spying tools.


The NSA's Tailored Access Operations (TAO) division is responsible for the biggest hacks we've learned about in the last year, so Der Spiegel's report is a special look at the methods and madness behind the NSA's all-star team. When a world leader's cell phone is hacked by the NSA, the TAO team is responsible. They're the hackers who can access anyone, anywhere, under any condition.

TAO hackers can track your digital movements remotely by exploiting security flaws in an operating system, like Windows, for example. (It's a TAO favorite.) But when new-fangled remote access hacking strategies don't work, though, the NSA goes old school. The agency's most-skilled team of hackers does not always work from behind a computer screen. Occasionally a target must be physically intercepted before the NSA can access their information. In these instances, TAO waits for the target to order new electronics. When their surveillance system alerts that Target X just bought a new laptop, the TAO intercepts the mail order, and has the computer delivered to an NSA facility. They then open the package, and install their malware technology onto the target's new computer. The product is then repackaged and sent along its merry way:

And you wondered why your Amazon order took so long. Of course, you have to be on the NSA's target list already in order for this to happen. They don't just indiscriminately intercept every laptop sold on Amazon.

If a target person, agency or company orders a new computer or related accessories, for example, TAO can divert the shipping delivery to its own secret workshops. The NSA calls this method interdiction. At these so-called "load stations," agents carefully open the package in order to load malware onto the electronics, or even install hardware components that can provide backdoor access for the intelligence agencies. All subsequent steps can then be conducted from the comfort of a remote computer.

These minor disruptions in the parcel shipping business rank among the "most productive operations" conducted by the NSA hackers, one top secret document relates in enthusiastic terms. This method, the presentation continues, allows TAO to obtain access to networks "around the world."

Usually the team sticks to new school hacking methods, like using a complicated system of tools called QUANTUM, focusing on social networks a target visits frequently, like Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter and YouTube, to remotely gain access to a their computer. Once the team has done enough surveillance and is ready to strike, TAO's QUANTUM system will alert hackers when a target tries to visit a particular website. If TAO's work is done properly, the system races to intercept the target's information request, and will hopefully instead infect the target's system with malware. For some reason LinkedIn is especially effective:

Sometimes TAO hackers do need some help, so they go to the NSA's unique "mail-order catalog" for hacking tools that can gain access to any computer system you could possibly dream of. Your security measures don't matter, either. NSA hackers have tools to crack systems created by Cisco, Western Digital, Huawei, or any other major cyber security firm. No target's computer is safe.

The technique can literally be a race between servers, one that is described in internal intelligence agency jargon with phrases like: "Wait for client to initiate new connection," "Shoot!" and "Hope to beat server-to-client response." Like any competition, at times the covert network's surveillance tools are "too slow to win the race." Often enough, though, they are effective. Implants with QUANTUMINSERT, especially when used in conjunction with LinkedIn, now have a success rate of over 50 percent, according to one internal document.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/nsa-intercepts-laptops-purchased-online-install-malware/356548/

 

[Slapdash]

Great Slashdot comment about why the NSA is attempting to build a quantum computer to decrypt public keys:

"Actually....It's a tool to help them justify congress how they can be spying on all Americans and not spying on any Americans at the same time."

 

[Statorama]

The NSA Intercepts Laptops Purchased Online to Install Malware According to a new report from Der Spiegel on the National Security Agency's top team of hackers, the agency intercept electronics purchased online before delivery to install malware and other spying tools. The NSA's Tailored Access Operations (TAO) division is responsible for the biggest hacks we've learned about in the last year, so Der Spiegel's report is a special look at the methods and madness behind the NSA's all-star team. When a world leader's cell phone is hacked by the NSA, the TAO team is responsible. They're the hackers who can access anyone, anywhere, under any condition. TAO hackers can track your digital movements remotely by exploiting security flaws in an operating system, like Windows, for example. (It's a TAO favorite.) But when new-fangled remote access hacking strategies don't work, though, the NSA goes old school. The agency's most-skilled team of hackers does not always work from behind a computer screen. Occasionally a target must be physically intercepted before the NSA can access their information. In these instances, TAO waits for the target to order new electronics. When their surveillance system alerts that Target X just bought a new laptop, the TAO intercepts the mail order, and has the computer delivered to an NSA facility. They then open the package, and install their malware technology onto the target's new computer. The product is then repackaged and sent along its merry way: And you wondered why your Amazon order took so long. Of course, you have to be on the NSA's target list already in order for this to happen. They don't just indiscriminately intercept every laptop sold on Amazon. If a target person, agency or company orders a new computer or related accessories, for example, TAO can divert the shipping delivery to its own secret workshops. The NSA calls this method interdiction. At these so-called "load stations," agents carefully open the package in order to load malware onto the electronics, or even install hardware components that can provide backdoor access for the intelligence agencies. All subsequent steps can then be conducted from the comfort of a remote computer.These minor disruptions in the parcel shipping business rank among the "most productive operations" conducted by the NSA hackers, one top secret document relates in enthusiastic terms. This method, the presentation continues, allows TAO to obtain access to networks "around the world."Usually the team sticks to new school hacking methods, like using a complicated system of tools called QUANTUM, focusing on social networks a target visits frequently, like Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter and YouTube, to remotely gain access to a their computer. Once the team has done enough surveillance and is ready to strike, TAO's QUANTUM system will alert hackers when a target tries to visit a particular website. If TAO's work is done properly, the system races to intercept the target's information request, and will hopefully instead infect the target's system with malware. For some reason LinkedIn is especially effective: Sometimes TAO hackers do need some help, so they go to the NSA's unique "mail-order catalog" for hacking tools that can gain access to any computer system you could possibly dream of. Your security measures don't matter, either. NSA hackers have tools to crack systems created by Cisco, Western Digital, Huawei, or any other major cyber security firm. No target's computer is safe.The technique can literally be a race between servers, one that is described in internal intelligence agency jargon with phrases like: "Wait for client to initiate new connection," "Shoot!" and "Hope to beat server-to-client response." Like any competition, at times the covert network's surveillance tools are "too slow to win the race." Often enough, though, they are effective. Implants with QUANTUMINSERT, especially when used in conjunction with LinkedIn, now have a success rate of over 50 percent, according to one internal document.http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/nsa-intercepts-laptops-purchased-online-install-malware/356548/

Hmmm, so maybe Mitt Romney's get out the vote software failed due to.....NSA malware?

 

[The Commish]

Tim....is your dictionary just a bunch of words in alphabetical order where you, yourself put definitions in for each word? Serious question because you have bastardized more words than I can count. Most of the time making definitions so vague, the words really have zero meaning. It's mucking up this thread more than usual. I asked nicely earlier in the thread to stay out of the technical discussion for this very reason.

 

[Slapdash]

Hmmm, so maybe Mitt Romney's get out the vote software failed due to.....NSA malware?

This comment is not nearly as laughable as it should be

 

[The Commish]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

 

[Ilov80s]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

I wouldn't expect him to ever return. If we grant him amnesty, it will be a pure political PR display. He won't come back and we know he won't come back. He has been de facto exiled.

 

[timschochet]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

I have no idea how paranoid he is. But he should believe it, if indeed its offered.

 

[whoknew]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

He should. All he has to do is make it public (as if it wouldn't be). What's the government going to do - publicly agree to give him clemency and then revoke it once he gets to the US? I don't think that would go over very well.

 

[Slapdash]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

I wouldn't expect him to ever return. If we grant him amnesty, it will be a pure political PR display. He won't come back and we know he won't come back. He has been de facto exiled.

Yep. I just hope he can find full amnesty in a country and continue to expose the abuses of the NSA.

 

[timschochet]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

He should. All he has to do is make it public (as if it wouldn't be). What's the government going to do - publicly agree to give him clemency and then revoke it once he gets to the US? I don't think that would go over very well.

Exactly. I would add that , once the Supreme Court cleared Daniel Ellsberg, he has spent the last 40 years in freedom here.

 

[tom22406]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

Early on I thought it was possible but the longer this drags out I don't see a deal being made between the two sides.

 

[Ilov80s]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

He should. All he has to do is make it public (as if it wouldn't be). What's the government going to do - publicly agree to give him clemency and then revoke it once he gets to the US? I don't think that would go over very well.

Exactly. I would add that , once the Supreme Court cleared Daniel Ellsberg, he has spent the last 40 years in freedom here.

I thought he got off on a mistrial in a court lower than the Supreme Court? Also, there were plots against him that did not get carried out. However, he had plotters.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

He should. All he has to do is make it public (as if it wouldn't be). What's the government going to do - publicly agree to give him clemency and then revoke it once he gets to the US? I don't think that would go over very well.

He could very easily have an "accident" after coming back.

 

[Ilov80s]

Why would he want to come back?

 

[Slapdash]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

He should. All he has to do is make it public (as if it wouldn't be). What's the government going to do - publicly agree to give him clemency and then revoke it once he gets to the US? I don't think that would go over very well.

He could very easily have an "accident" after coming back.

Like Micheal Hastings...

 

[The Commish]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

He should. All he has to do is make it public (as if it wouldn't be). What's the government going to do - publicly agree to give him clemency and then revoke it once he gets to the US? I don't think that would go over very well.

People really believe our government is above making sure there's an "accident" that happens to someone who exposes the most secret of secrets?? I don't trust our government with our tax dollars much less keeping their hands off one of the biggest "traitors" of our time.....that's the term our government has been using to describe this man (among others).

 

[whoknew]

"I firmly believe that Justice Louis Brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant," Obama said, "and I know that restoring transparency is not only the surest way to achieve results, but also to earn back the trust in government without which we cannot deliver changes the American people sent us here to make."

Link

Court Grants Secrecy for Memo on Phone Data

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the Obama administration may continue to withhold a Justice Department memo that apparently opened a loophole in laws protecting the privacy of consumer data.

The memo establishes the legal basis for telephone companies to hand over customers’ calling records to the government without a subpoena or court order, even when there is no emergency, according to a 2010 report by the Justice Department’s inspector general. The details of the legal theory, and the circumstances in which it could be invoked, remain unclear.

The ruling, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, came down on the side of a broad conception of the executive branch’s power to keep secret its interpretation of what the law permits it to do. The ruling may make it easier for the government to shield other memos by the Justice Department’s powerful Office of Legal Counsel from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The document at issue is a classified memo issued by the Office of Legal Counsel on Jan. 8, 2010. A report later that year by the Justice Department’s inspector general at the time, Glenn A. Fine, disclosed the memo’s existence and its broad conclusion that telephone companies may voluntarily provide records to the government “without legal process or a qualifying emergency,” notwithstanding the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The F.B.I. had asked for the memo as part of an investigation by Mr. Fine into problems with the bureau’s use of so-called exigent letters to obtain telephone and financial records without following any legal procedures.

The bureau, which has abandoned exigent letters, said that it did not employ the legal theory outlined in the memo when using the letters, and that it had no plans to use it in the future. But Mr. Fine warned that the existence of the Office of Legal Counsel’s theory created a “significant gap” in “accountability and oversight,” and urged Congress to modify the statute. Lawmakers have not acted on that recommendation.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2011 seeking to obtain the memo under the Freedom of Information Act. But a District Court judge ruled that the memo fell into an exception to that law covering materials developed when the executive branch is deliberating internally about what policy to select, and a three-judge panel on the appeals court agreed on Friday.

The Office of Legal Counsel issues binding legal advice to the executive branch. If it says something is permitted, officials who act on that advice are essentially immune from prosecution. Its power to adopt secret legal theories has come under greater scrutiny since a string of controversial opinions it produced during the Bush administration, including signing off on warrantless wiretapping and on the brutal questioning of detainees.

“Even if the O.L.C. opinion describes the legal parameters of what the F.B.I. is permitted to do, it does not state or determine the F.B.I.’s policy,” Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote in the decision on Friday. “The F.B.I. was free to decline to adopt the investigative tactics deemed legally permissible in the O.L.C. opinion.”

As a result, he added, the memo was covered in its entirety by the exception. By the same legal reasoning, nearly any Office of Legal Counsel memo would be exempt from disclosure.

“We are pleased with the decision,” said Andrew Ames, a Justice Department spokesman.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation had argued that because of the special role played by Office of Legal Counsel memos, they amounted to the government’s official “working law” and should not fall into the category of deliberative materials that are exempt from disclosure.

David Sobel, a lawyer for the foundation, called the ruling “troubling,” describing the office’s memos as a body of “secret law” that the public has a right to know about. He said he hoped the ruling would reinvigorate efforts among some lawmakers to enact a law opening such memos to greater scrutiny outside the executive branch.

“It’s kind of hard to imagine how a different case in the D.C. Circuit is likely to have a different outcome in light of this opinion,” he said.

Legal specialists said the ruling was in line with how other federal courts, notably the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, have dealt with requests under the Freedom of Information Act for Office of Legal Counsel memos in recent years.

During the litigation, the Justice Department also told the court that parts of the memo contained classified information, “highly specific in nature and known to very few individuals,” about a secret intelligence-gathering technique that the F.B.I. is using against “hostile entities.”

The memo was also requested by McClatchy Newspapers, and a Justice Department letter rejecting that request may offer a clue about its contents. It suggested that the memo involves a statute that makes an exception to data privacy laws for “the acquisition by the United States government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications.”

That same statutory exception is said to be the legal basis for a recently disclosed C.I.A. program in which AT&T, under a voluntarily contract rather than a subpoena, searches its vast database of international phone records and provides data about calls that may help the agency identify associates of overseas terrorism suspects.

Most of those communications are purely foreign, officials have said. But when AT&T analysts identify a potentially relevant call that has one end inside the United States, it partly masks the number on that end. The C.I.A. refers the matter to the F.B.I. for domestic investigation.

The bureau still uses so-called national security letters to compel telephone companies to turn over records without a court order. A recent report by a review groupappointed by President Obama to review surveillance policy recommended that national security letters be overhauled to require judicial approval.

The government’s use of bulk calling records has come under greater scrutiny after leaks disclosed that the National Security Agency has been collecting records of every domestic phone call. On Friday, the government announced that the nation’s surveillance court had reauthorized that program for an additional 90 days.

In recent weeks, two Federal District Court judges have come to opposite conclusions about whether the bulk collection program is lawful. On Thursday and Friday, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union and the Justice Department appealed the rulings.

The surveillance review group has also recommended overhauling the program so that the data would remain in the hands of the phone companies and judicial approval would be required for each government search through the records.

 

[Politician Spock]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

I have no idea how paranoid he is. But he should believe it, if indeed its offered.

I love how The Commish asked a question specifically to you, and then posted another question to everyone else, and you in turn answer the question to everyone else and ignore the question asked specifically to you.

 

[The Commish]

Question to everyone else....does anyone really think Snowden would believe our government if they go through the charade of granting him amnesty??

I have no idea how paranoid he is. But he should believe it, if indeed its offered.

I love how The Commish asked a question specifically to you, and then posted another question to everyone else, and you in turn answer the question to everyone else and ignore the question asked specifically to you.

SSDD. I predict that he'll say it was offensive or some such and he ignored it. As to the question to everyone else, I'm sorta surprised at the responses. If I were him, knowing what he knows, I'd have to believe there is about a 0.00000000000000001% chance that I'd believe them ESPECIALLY after all the traitor, treason, spy when he first left.

 

[tom22406]

NSA phone record collection does little to prevent terrorist attack,group says By Ellen Nakashima, Published: January 12 E-mail the writer
An analysis of 225 terrorism cases inside the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that the bulk collection of phone records by the National Security Agency “has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.”

In the majority of cases, traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided the tip or evidence to initiate the case, according to the study by the New America Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit group.


The study, to be released Monday, corroborates the findings of a White House-appointed review group, which said last month that the NSA counterterrorism program “was not essential to preventing attacks” and that much of the evidence it did turn up “could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court] orders.”
Under the program, the NSA amasses the metadata — records of phone numbers dialed and call lengths and times — of virtually every American. Analysts may search the data only with reasonable suspicion that a number is linked to a terrorist group. The content of calls is not collected.

The new study comes as President Obama is deliberating over the future of the NSA’s bulk collection program. Since it was disclosed in June, the program has prompted intense debate over its legality, utility and privacy impact.

Senior administration officials have defended the program as one tool that complements others in building a more complete picture of a terrorist plot or network. And they say it has been valuable in knocking down rumors of a plot and in determining that potential threats against the United States are nonexistent. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. calls that the “peace of mind” metric.

In an opinion piece published after the release of the review group’s report, Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director and a member of the panel, said the program “needs to be successful only once to be invaluable.”

The researchers at the New America Foundation found that the program provided evidence to initiate only one case, involving a San Diego cabdriver, Basaaly ­Moalin, who was convicted of sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. Three co-conspirators were also convicted. The cases involved no threat of attack against the United States.

“The overall problem for U.S. counterterrorism officials is not that they need vaster amounts of information from the bulk surveillance programs, but that they don’t sufficiently understand or widely share the information they already possess that was derived from conventional law enforcement and intelligence techniques,” said the report, whose principal author is Peter Bergen, director of the foundation’s National Security Program and an expert on terrorism.

In at least 48 instances, traditional surveillance warrants obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were used to obtain evidence through intercepts of phone calls and e-mails, said the researchers, whose results are in an online database.

More than half of the cases were initiated as a result of traditional investigative tools. The most common was a community or family tip to the authorities. Other methods included the use of informants, a suspicious-activity report filed by a business or community member to the FBI, or information turned up in investigations of non-terrorism cases.

But Richard Clarke, a member of the White House review panel and a former White House counterterrorism adviser, said he thinks the NSA can use traditional methods — such as obtaining a court order — to obtain data as part of counterterrorism investigations.

“Although we might be safer if the government had ready access to a massive storehouse of information about every detail of our lives, the impact of such a program on the quality of life and on individual freedom would simply be too great,” the group’s report said.

Said Clarke: “Even if NSA had solved every one of the [terrorist] cases based on” the phone collection, “we would still have proposed the changes.”

Supporters of the NSA program said it’s important for the agency to maintain the database of phone records so that analysts can query it quickly. One phone company executive concurred that the private sector can’t “mine” records the same way as the NSA because their databases aren’t as comprehensive.

“So if they call us at 3 o’clock in the morning and said, ‘We got a big issue and we need something in an hour,’ we couldn’t do that,” said the executive, who was not authorized to speak on the record and spoke on the condition of anonymity. “But if they say, ‘Give it to us in the next two weeks,’ yes, we could probably do that.”

According to the New America Foundation, after the NSA shared Moalin’s number with the FBI, the bureau waited two months to begin an investigation and wiretap his phone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-phone-record-collection-does-little-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-group-says/2014/01/12/8aa860aa-77dd-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html

 

[The Commish]

We've been over this a million times haven't we? Do we need anyone else to state the obvious. With the way technology has advanced in the last decade, this sort of approach is pointless/useless on top of being an invasion of our privacy.