Slashdot Mirror
The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence
hdtv writes "Wired News has published the details of NSA wiretap and revealed former AT&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower, specifically covering the evidence he presented when he came forward." From the article: "In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case. For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."
Mark Klein is a great American hero and a patriot.
Expecting the neo-con mod-down in 3...2...1..
This usually happens before an identity becomes public. And it never becomes public after that.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Nothing will come of this.
When the evidence surfaced, there was the usual fracas about rights and privacy and yadda yadda, and then nothing got done for a few days. Then, the contents of this so-called secret room became public knowledge (Those commercially available network monitoring devices that were mentioned in a previous slashdot article.)
Those few days were more than enough to completely change the contents of that room. I'm not saying that that is what happened, I'm just saying that there is no way for us to know if the contents of the supposed secret room stayed the same. What would you do if you were the NSA and you were monitoring a goodly percentage of internet traffic and got found out? You'd try your damndest to hide it, because you're the NSA and that's what you do.
Plus, if any of this gets successfully filed under 'Homeland Security' you're never going to get a judge to do anything but blow smoke.
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
That's a flat-out wrong definition used by the Karl Rovian apologists. What does a "leaker" do when the subject of contention is the executive branch? Go to the cops and let the case get dropped? A leaker is anyone who discloses protected information, regardless of the recipient. A whistleblower is leaker releasing evidence of illegal or unauthorized activity or a coverup of that activity.
I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
...the public is the ultimate authority, so there is no difference between revealing information to the public and revealing it to the authorities.
The idea that there is a difference is a relic of the idea of government by a king whose authority came from some combination of divine grant, parentage, etc., and had nothing to do with the will of the people.
The question is, when will the dam finally burst? When will we see headlines talking about impeachment?
Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president).
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11. Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject? Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing when it's absurdly, factlessly spun in the media, but people like Pelosi know better than to directly attack on this subject - because she's in the same loop and has been for years.
Will there ever be an end to the war on terra?
It's so simple! Since it doesn't actually exist, all you have to do is stop uttering that stupid meme, and it goes away. Poof! You win the war on terra.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're right. He's not a whistleblower. He's a hero and a true patriot.
Some supporters of the Bush Administration have actually seriously suggested that blowing the whistle on this out of concerns of illegality SHOULD result in serious prosecution and detention.
In fact, I monitor Little Green Footballs from time to time, and I thought to check the LGF spin on the matter, and one of the first things they did with the NSA phone database story was focus on the fact that it was a leak, not the concerns of the apparent illegality of the program.
From what I get from the article:
Theres a box attached to the phone system that is connected to a room that he does not have access to, and he only knows of one person who does have acess to it. Therefore, there is obviously a top-secret NSA spy program illegally operating out of that room at the direct request of George Bush who wants to listen to you talking to your grandmother about her bunions.
There is absolutely no possibility that it's something like an AT&T monitoring system to make sure that its employees are not committing fraud, hackers are not abusing the network, etc... Obviously, if it were something like that, AT&T would want to let everyone know exactly how such a monitering program worked (so that they would know how to bypass it). What are the chances that a low paid, low level engineer, would ever sell such extremely useful information to bad guys?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Ten bucks on Mr. Klein soon to be sued by AT&T, and pursued by district attorney for thieft of AT&T company property (namely the said documents.)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Whistleblowers go to the authorities (police, management, congress, etc).
Leakers go to the media.
Uh right. So, if you're a cop and you discover that the police chief and a bunch of your fellow officers are in cahoots with drug smugglers, you just go tell...who?
If you find out damning information about people who have the ability to have you killed (even if you don't think they'd do it) you have three basic choices:
Your distinction isn't between "wistleblower" and "leaker" it's between "dead sap" and "live whistleblower."
--MarkusQ
P.S. In any case, even if you do get it out in time that they don't gain anything by shutting you up, you can expect to get fired so they can dismiss you as a "disgruntled former employee," and, if you've really got the dirt on them, you may also get your very own swiftboating.
The most appropriate channel to begin discussion on government corruption is the media, because the people who are responsible for stopping abusive government are the people.
Whistleblowers go to the authorities to stop companies because it is the law's duty to deal with the problem.
Leakers go the press to stop government abuses because it is the electorate's duty to deal with the problem.
"And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker.
Wrong. The 'authorities' were part of the problem, Deep Throat went to the highest authority -- the people (via the media).
Not that DT was completely altruistic in his motives, but when the corruption is at the highest level of government authority, the only power who has authority of them is the people.
Just to toss out an ad hominem / straw man: Or do you believe that the people have no authority over government? And that the only body the government answers to is itself? With the recent destruction of the balance of power and checks & balances, to tell you the truth, it's becoming that way. IMO.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Whistleblowers are a type of leaker. It doesn't matter who they report to. What makes them a whistleblower is the reason for the leaking: Whisleblowers leak information in order to expose illegal or unethical activity being done by the organization they are a member of.
So yes, deep throat was a whistleblower, as is Mark Klein.
I'm with you on name-calling (it's fun but it doesn't exactly promote dialog), but please tell me how your use of hard core left leaner is not name-calling? And WTF is a hard core leaner, anyway? Don't moderates lean one way or the other, while the hard core guys are all the way out?
Also, grandparent supported his argument with a relevant example (follow the link), so it's not the case that he's got "no other option." Unlike... your response?
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
But IF... IF this spying program is meant to protect Americans from potential terrorist attacks, wouldn't it be better AS public knowledge?
Wouldn't the terrorists just say, "Crap, they know about it! Call it off."
When bin Laden finally realized that he was being tracked by the satellite phone he used to use, he simply stopped using it and reverted to writing things down on paper. Much slower, but also much more difficult to intercept. He certianly didn't just give up because he couldn't talk to them on the phone any more.
Committed terrorists will simply stop using high technology devices like cell phones, the internet, etc. to communicate with each other since it's been demonstrated that the government can and will intercept everything they possibly can. The terrorists will just go back to using snail-mail, word of mouth, etc. Again, it'll take longer but it'll also prove more secure. Unless, of course, the NSA then moves to have operatives put in every US Post Office to read every piece of mail that's sent in the country.
Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)
...
...
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course
Now where did i leave that sarcasm key
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This goes back to an argument my someone I know and I have had over this. She's mostly pro-Bush, I... voted for Badnarik because of Bush. I support law and order... real law and order. I think that national security is never a justification for attacking due process of law. Even if we have to have secret trials by jury because the evidence is so dangerous, I don't think things should be hidden from the courts.
Like a lot of Bush supporters, she cites the leaks of information as reasons to not take this to court, but I say just prosecute people who leak information that needs to be confidential and that the public really doesn't need to know about. However, national security is never grounds to hide from judicial review attacks on the Constitution. People who bring evidence of criminal or unconstitutional actions need to be protected by the courts.
Something has to be done to protect these people. If I were governor, I would give him a state police protection detail and make it be known that any federal agent who tries to arrest him will be charged with felony kidnapping in a state court. The states need to stand up and protect their citizens. My state, VA, has an obligation to me to protect me from unconstitutional federal abuse because if the feds act outside of the enumerated powers, it's state jurisdiction and any federal coercion in that respect is criminal conduct. Federal agents who abuse, injur or kill people, especially outside of the Constitution's limits on their jurisdictions are criminals, not law enforcement agents and ought to be prosecuted by the the states accordingly.
I call you that because this strained definition of leaker VS whistleblower originates from the Bush administration trying to equate their leaks of a CIA agent's identity to that of any other innocuous information fed to the press; and at the same time remove the saintly aura of *Whistleblower* status from the hordes of disillusioned executive branch employees who've now gone public.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
got 'em dead to rights as I read it. now, if this was authorized under the telecom act, no issues. if not, the class-action lawsuit and the pending FCC investigation should bankrupt the long-haul companies that implemented the spytaps.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Mark Klein and all others who expose these attacks against American's civil liberties are true heros to the Republic. These neocon scumbugs know their days are number and will have to go all out on police state in order to continue against the American people, who are the REAL suspect and criminals behind 911, not some fantasy outfit called al Qaeda/make believe war on terror.
"If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11."
You pretend to be non-partisan, but this is the current partisan Republican party line. "Democrats do horrible things too, so don't complain when we do horrible things. Democrats in Congress voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, so stop blaming us."
This is missing the entire point. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responsible for the current evisceration of the liberties some of us still demand. Just like those Democrats who blame the Republicans, you are unable to see past your my-team your-team warfare to realize that the Republicans in power, just like the Democrats in power, are responsible for this.
When will you realize that your sacred Republican leaders of this vicious circus don't deserve defense just because the Democrats have helped them gain nigh-totalitarian control?
I wish I could be sure that was funny. Not long before the Greek wiretapping scandal broke, Vodafone's network planning manager died suddenly in an apparent suicide. The world is full of coincidences, but that scandal was a Big Deal including eavesdropping on members of the Cabinet and even the Prime Minister.
I really hate fuckits like you because you make it so difficult to be a Democrat. Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury NOT FOR GETTING A BLOWJOB IN THE OVAL OFFICE!! Al Gore lost the election it was not handed to Bush by the Supreme Court (did I like it? not really but that's the way thigns are, nto everything goes the way you want them to). Enough with the bullshit sore loser crap. There are far more imoiprtant problems facing the world, we do not need uneducated fuckwits like you dredging up old tired crap over and over and over and over and over and opver and over and over... You make the rest of us look bad when you do.
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11. Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject? Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing when it's absurdly, factlessly spun in the media, but people like Pelosi know better than to directly attack on this subject - because she's in the same loop and has been for years.
The text above presumes that the congressional oversight committee for these programs has the power to actually do anything. This presumption is incorrect.
The small committee briefed on these NSA programs is prohibited from discussing the programs anywhere outside the briefings. So what is a committee member to do if they have concerns? Ask someone outside if, hypothetically, some hypothetical NSA program could be improper? No way - that would put you in jail. Even after the programs are semi-public, these committee members are still prohibited from discussing the programs. Pelosi herself, in an NPR interview a few weeks back, expressed that she had wanted to speak out on the warrantless wiretap program from the very beginning, but was powerless to get external verification of her concerns, because doing so would reveal that the program existed.
Could the committee do something internally, by itself? Perhaps, were it so moved. But since the committee is heavily Republican, the likelihood of that happening is slim (though growing somewhat wider in a time where Republicans seem to want to portray themselves as standing independent of the president, at least until after Nov 2006. But I digress).
That's why you don't see anyone from the "oversight" committee saying anything. Because the oversight committee is just for show, actually having no real power of oversight. Real oversight would allow for accountability, and no one can be held accountable for programs that no one is allowed to talk to anyone about.
Thank god for whistleblowers.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11.
This statement can have no basis in fact without your personal presence on Senate or House intelligence committees. Having lied at every opportunity and avoided those venues where such lying would be criminal (FISA) why would this administration choose to reveal the truth to Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, et. al.
Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject?
Because the loyal opposition is so cowed by the Bloody Shirt of Terror that they cannot bring themselves to confront the administration on this or any other aspect of the War on Dust.
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news.
No one knows what it really does except the spooks who built it. As to the case for a serious breach, enumerate for me the lives lost in consequence of any of the numerous breaches in this notoriously leaky ship of state. Now form a ratio with the number of lives lost to the mindless, indeterminate and interminable wars the administration has declared on a) information, b) wingnut islamists making political hay on the street in the crescent out of our belligerence and c) the secular parties who are our natural allies in the region. Limit yourself to righteous and holy 'Merkin lives if you so desire.
In short, go soak your head.
illegitimii non ingravare
Whether they were briefed on the "exact" programs or not is not clear; apparently, Pelosi was briefed on something related to the program that came to light months ago, and objected to it when she was briefed on it. OTOH, since the program that has recently come to light is not the same one that was revealed months ago, its not at all clear who was briefed on what, though in order to provide political cover, the administration has released lists purporting to account the number of times particular members received some briefing relating to the NSA surveillance programs.
But the number of briefings isn't the issue, even when you restrict it to whether Congress was informed. The completeness and accuracy of the briefings is the issue.
Based on the runup to the Iraq War and essentially all other actions undertaken by congressional democrats in the last four years, I disagree with your assessment of the idea that Nancy Pelosi is an adversiary of George W. Bush.
the actual-in-the-know political opposition
I furthermore disagree with your claim that there exists an "actual in-the-know political opposition".
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing
I furthermore disagree with your dual implications here that
Personally I think top-ranking congressional democrats are just as much potential casualties of the "political damage" that this breach makes possible, as the White House is. The toadyism in Congress crosses party lines, and I think congressional democrats such as Ms. Pelosi need very badly to keep their base from finding out exactly how badly they have been sold out.
The famous hacker Kevin Poulsen in the book "The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen" discovered computers in secret rooms in AT&T that could tap any phone in America.. and this was in the early 90's. They were tapping mafia guys.... but without a court order... so AT&T's been illegally tapping phones at least since then.
How's it effective? He and other members of al Queada have demonstrated extreme patience when planning terrorist attacks. Avoiding the use of phones, the internet, etc. to communicate certianly hasn't stopped them. Or do you consider simply delaying attacks as "effective"?
This is exactly my argument for rolling back the police state.
Since denying US citizens rights to privacy, free speech, free assembly, and a free press will only slow terrorist groups like al Queda down slightly, if at all, they are ineffective, and our rights should be restored. Won't happen, but should happen.
Regards,
Ross
look at the spam that makes it through to your inbox - filters can be circumvented. Besides, would any serious terrorist speak in unencrypted, uncoded phrases oven an unprotected medium?? They are going to bust backseat "shoe bombers" and obvious dumbasses like Zacharias Moussouai at best... This is going to have zero effect on catching terrorists and huge potenetial for political abuses...
"But this one goes to 11!"
The "second copy" of all that traffic then went to the secret room with one or more Sun V880's, Sun storage arrays, Narus machines, juniper routers, Brocade silkworm fiber switches, etc.
That is the way you would want to do it, pull copies of the traffic directly off the OC cicuits as it arrived/left, outside of any routing done within AT&T's infrastructure. So, at that level, no you wouldn't "skim trtaffic off the routers".
This from the Risks forum, back in 1991:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.71.html#subj2.1
From the article:
"There has been plenty of discussion about SB266 requiring all communication equipment to provide the plaintext to the government on demand. Well, I've decided if they want plaintext, give them plaintext. I've written a program that will convert any file into strings from a context-free grammar. The bits are recovered by parsing. To test it's viability, I created two grammars and a program to do the work."
"The first converts any file into the radio commentary of a baseball game between two teams, The Blogs and the Whappers. Could something as American as baseball be hiding something?..." A very interesting read.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Besides, would any serious terrorist speak in unencrypted, uncoded phrases oven an unprotected medium??
Yep, exactly right, which is why it's bullshit that this is about terrorism. This is about spying on Americans. They want to know who is leaking things like Abu Ghraib photos, or info about the torture camps in Eastern Europe.
"Folks, the Big Thing everyone is missing here is that any clown with a packet sniffer can see just about anything."
That's not true. You can only see what's going on on your local network. OTOH, this government program is reviewing practically all internet traffic. Do you see the difference there? I can probably sniff what my neighbor is reading on my cable link, but I won't be able to sniff what Joe Nobody is doing clear on the other side of the country (unless I hack into routers/machines on his network --but that involves hacking, not just sniffing.) .
The government is now tracking all of us, without a warrant or probably cause. We all now have a file, albeit small and digital, a file nonetheless.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Funny thing about Congress... certain members have been kept up to date on these operations since they were first created and yet several of them (most notably Nancy Pelosi) have expressed their outrage about finding out about these programs despite the fact that many knew since late 2001!
That's funny, are you under the impression that it would have been legal for Pelosi to express knowledge, let alone outrage, regarding this program before it was disclosed publically? The congressional committies are effectivly useless in this regard because it would be a violation of national security for them to exercise any actual oversight.
What do you mean, "some supporters?" Wasn't it reported that the Administration supports a bill that would make any kind of whistleblowing on Homeland Security illegal?
If you've ever wondered why all the mergers of the telcos go unchallenged, this is the reason. If you only have to deal with a couple of companies, ones that know you can legally split them up under monopoly laws, you can make them do whatever you like. AT&T is almost as large as it was back before it was forced to divest.
If we had a truely healthy telecomm industry with lots of companies competing with each other, we would have heard about this program as soon as it was suggested. One or more companies would have decided to stand up for their customers.
Better yet, it's likely the program wouldn't have been suggested, because of the concerns that it would be leaked. The fewer companies the government has to work with, the easier it is to keep it quiet.
BTW, I commend the gentleman who risked his freedom to protect the freedom of us all. He should get a medal.
Just in case you're one of those who believes that you're safer with the government able to spy on every Internet transaction you make, remember, who is monitoring this traffic, it's underpaid civil service employees who have mortgages and kids to put through school. Sooner or later, one or more of them is going to use their privilaged access to swipe credit cards numbers or worse.
If that's not enough to scare you, think about this can be used for political gain. Put in the wrong context, perfectly innocent Internet activity can be made to look bad. Who hasn't searched on an unfamiliar term only to get barraged by a million porn sites? Don't forget about what happens when you accidentally mispell a site name, as well.
And here's the kicker. For those of you who love the Republican Party and are convinced they will never abuse this kind of power, do you really have the same kind of faith in the Democrats? (Personally, I have a lot more faith in the Dems, but that's just because I don't think they can keep anything secret.) We should never allow our government to have this kind of power. No matter how innocent the intentions, someone will eventually abuse it.
If you truely think you are better off without a right to privacy, I expect you're soon going to find out why you are wrong. If you have any doubts about living in an age where the government can watch everything you do, now is the time to stand up and say something about it.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
If I had mod points, I'd find a way to give you all of them. But also let me rebut.
...
If sufficiently concerned over the issue,
Right there at the beginning. As I heard it described by Ms. Pelosi, the problem she had was in determining whether her concern was warranted. The best way for her to do so would be to discuss the situation with an uninterested third party, which for obvious reasons is not possible.
While you're correct about raising the issue before the whole House in secret session, that concept may ignore the politics of the game somewhat. Because the information was leaked to the public, and there was a public outcry, there are members of Congress from both sides of the aisle raising concerns. Had it been brought to the House in secret session, it would have been all too easy - outside of public view - for partisan politics to continue. I predict the Republicans would have stood together to make Ms. Pelosi (or anyone coming before that body) out to be supporting the terrorists by trying to inhibit the ability of our intelligence services to do their job protecting the American people from the threat of attack.
See? I've been hearing that crap so long I can spew it myself!
Anyway, without the public at least partially in the know, the Republican-controlled government (all three branches, remember?) would simply continue on with the smoke screen about terrorists. Terrorism is the new Communism in the new McCarthyism.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk