Slashdot Mirror
Passive E-Mail Monitoring Leads To Arrest
www.2advanced.net writes "The world's first arrest resulting from passive monitoring of electronic communications is being reported by Globe Technology. In the article, sources reveal that 'an e-mail message intercepted by NSA spies precipitated a massive investigation by intelligence officials in several countries that culminated in the arrest of nine men in Britain and one in suburban Orleans, Ont. -- 24-year-old software developer Mohammed Momin Khawaja, who has since been charged with facilitating a terrorist act and being part of a terrorist group.'"
I know this story is probably going to get a lot of people riled up. However, it is still my understanding that the NSA goes to great pains to avoid intercepting any communication that comes from a U.S. citizen. They are strictly prohibited from doing so.
If you are a U.S. citizen, your main privacy concerns should be with the FBI and the DoJ with their powers granted by the Patriot Act.
Actually... it has apparently been declassified:
s ting-people/200110/msg00157.html
From http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/intere
Out of curiosity I went hunting for info on the United States Signals
Intelligence Directives (USSIDs) I had to be aware of in a former line of work.
Much to my surprise, USSID 18, which outlines procedures for the NSA's
collection of data on "U.S. persons" was declassified just over a year ago.
I thought the document might be of interest to IPers, especially at this time.
An introduction, and links to the archives can be found at:
http://cipherwar.com/news/00/nsa_surveillance.htm
(From the site above:)
In the aftermath of revelations in the 1970s about NSA interception of the
communications of anti-war and other political activists new procedures
were established governing the interception of communications involving
Americans. The version of USSID 18 currently in force was issued in July
1993 and "prescribes policies and procedures and assigns responsibilities
to ensure that the missions and functions of the United States SIGINT
System (USSS) are conducted in a manner that safeguards the constitutional
rights of U.S. persons."
(And a bit from USSID 18, itself - any errors in transcription are my fault:)
SECTION 1 - PREFACE
1.1. (U) The Fourth Amendment ot the Unites States Constitution protects
all U.S. persons anywhere in the world and all persons within the United
States from unreasonable searches and seizures by any person or agency
acting on behalf of the U.S. Government. The Supreme Court has ruled that
the interception of electronic communications is a search and seizure
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It is therefore mandatory that
signals intelligence (SIGINT) operations be conducted pursuant to
procedures which meet the reasonableness requirements of the fourth
amendment.
1.2. (U) In determining whether United States SIGING System (USSS)
operations are "reasonable," it is necessary to balance the U.S.
Government's need for foreign intelligence information and the privacy
interests of persons protected by the Fourth Amendment. Striking that
balance has consumed much time and effort by all branches of the United
States Government. The results of that effort are reflected in the
references listed in Section 2 below. Together, these references require
the minimization of U.S. person information collected, processed, retained
or disseminated by the USSS. The purpose of this document is to implement
these minimization requirements.
1.3. (U) Several themes run throughout this USSID. The most important is
that intelligence operation and the protection of constitutional rights are
not incompatible. It is not necessary to deny legitimate foreign
intelligence collection or suppress legitimate foreign intelligence
information to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. Persons.
1.4. (U) Finally, these minimization procedures implement the
constitutional principle of "reasonableness" by giving different categories
of individuals and entities different levels of protection. These levels
range from the stringent protection accorded U.S. citizens and permanent
resident aliens in the United States to provisions relating to foreign
diplomats in the U.S. These differences reflect yet another main theme of
these procedures, that is, that the focus of all foreign intelligence
operation is on foreign entities and persons.
With the state of current encryption systems, it is very unlikely... The best approach to break encryption is by breaking the weakest link in the protocol, not the encryption algorithm.
Once they suspect illegal activities and start an investigation, there is a lot of way to access the plain text without having to break the encryption algorithm. One easy way, is to break into the target computer and install a key logger. This requires a lot less efforts.
Note that to suspect illegal activities, they can just do some traffic analysis. If they find some pattern (an e-mail is sent from A in CA to B in the UK, then shortly after another e-mail is sent from B in the UK to C in Pakistan, then you have the same path in reverse and the pattern repeat a lot) that trigger their alert, they will monitor A, B and C a little more closely and dig a little deeper to see if it looks suspucious enough for an investigation. Then they start to do active spying and they build their case.
The passive monitoring in that case does not requires an breaking of encryption... it does not even requires to know the plaintext (if the traffic is encrypted).
It was most definitely about the oil. But not necessarily the United States getting the oil. The U.S. just needed to stop Iraq from selling oil in Euros and devaluing the U.S. currency even further.
Not from the "mainstream" press, but excellent articles detailing of how Iraq switching from the U.S. dollar (approved by OPEC in the early 70's as the official currency for oil) to the Euro for oil could seriously harm the U.S. economy.
Not Oil, but Dollars vs. Euros
Iraq, the Dollar and the Euro
Evidently they are confusing packet headers(envelope, as they call it) with e-mail headers.
And the counterexample to the second statement is NAT(Network Address Translation).
Highly unlikely.
If not, why won't these arrests be thrown out of court?
They weren't arrested by US authorities, nor are they being prosecuted in US courts - the agencies that arrested them, presumably the RCMP and MI5, are not bound by the US constitution, and operate under the laws of their own nations, not those of the United States. Even if they were being extradited to the United States, the law is quite clear - non-resident aliens not within the United States and/or its territories and possesions are not entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, specifically, the Fourth Amendment.
Or don't Canadian and Brittish courts care about search warrants?
The RCMP and MI5 undoubtedly conducted their own investigation, and didn't simply run off to arrest people just because NSA said so. During the course of that investigation, those agencies were bound by whatever laws were in effect in their respective nations. Canada does, IIRC, recognize an exclusionary rule similar to that of the United States, but the UK does not. IIRC, of course - detailed questions should be directed to qualified experts in the laws of those nations. ;)
Or don't warrants apply in international law?
Not the way you apparently think they do, anyway. Had the subjects been American citizens, a warrant for any sort of extended surveillance would have been in order for the NSA, if there were plans to prosecute in the US. The RCMP and MI5 operate according whatever the laws of Canada and the UK say about warrants and surveillance.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Somalia - did the right thing, but buggered off when the heat was turned up. As a result, Osama bin Laden and his ilk saw that the US would cut and run if attacked. So, OBL decided to attack the US. Result: September 11, 2001. Guess you shoulda stuck it out and done the right thing, huh?
True, OBL saw our withdrawl as a sign of weakness. But it in no way resulted his decision to launch 9/11. If we stayed, he would have used our presence in a Moslem nation as another "saber rattling" point. Had we stuck it out and "done the right thing" you would probabally would accuse us of installing a "puppet regime" to keep the peace. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
If Iraq didn't have oil, Saddam would not have become the butcher he was, since he wouldn't had all those US dollars to by the weapons with.
Without our support, he wouldn't have had the weapons to attack Iran. And yes, supplying him with Chemical Weapon technology was a mistake. But it didn't take American technology to make him a butcher. Look at his torture chambers: nothing more sophisticated than rope, iron, wooden poles and electric current. How do you apply the Oil + America = brutal dictator argument here? Yes, WMD was used against his own people, but just as many died through small arms fire or other "low cost" means.
They claim to be about justice, yet opt out of the world criminal court in the Hague. You know, the ones trying war crimes and crimes against humanity committed Bosnia, Kosovo and Rawanda.
This is where you are the most misinformed. We opted out of the WCC for a damn good reason. Plain and simple: An American soldier charged by the World Criminal Court would have fewer rights and due process than he would through the U.S. Military Justice System Please read that again, very slowly, and digest it. We opted out not because we don't care about war crimes, or because we're imperialistic nation-building tyrants bent on world domination, or just because we're assholes. We did it to guarantee that American Military justice is not superceeded by a foreign system that provides fewer rights to the accused. Period!!!
All that terrorism is just the result of "evil" or jealousy or something...
In a word, well, yes. What is it that Bin Laden wants? Listen to his tapes so generously provided by Al-Jazeera:
and.. oh yes..
There you have it sparky. Al-Qaida exists to further the cause of a militant ultra-radical pan-islamic state. There can be peace in Israel and a Free Palestine - They'll still hate us. The U.S. can shed it's dependancy on foreign oil (something I'm 100% in favor of) and never step foot into a Moslem nation again - They'll still hate us. Until I (and 300m other Americans) start shouting "Ahllau Akbar!", cover our wives with burlap potato sacks, overthrow our government and replace it with some whacko Imam, they will continue to hate us. And I can guarantee that the first fatwah that will come out of Washington is to overthrow the Infidel, Secular, Satanist nation to the north of us. Better start studying your Koran.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno