Slashdot Mirror
Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Document
ifitzgerald writes "This morning, Wired News released the full text of the AT&T NSA wiretap documents that are currently under court seal. From the article: 'AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released.
Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy.
As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.'"
I think our boys at Wired are in trouble now, no?
It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T. I sincerely hope nothing wrong comes out of this to them. But knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"! :)
"I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
If I'm being prosecuted for a nation-wide spying program, then I suppose I have to say "that's fine with me".
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I am now a subscriber to your magazine.
Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.
This administration deserves neither loyalty nor love.
Expecting the conservative mod down in 3..2..1
Wired states in the article that this isn't illegal. The gag order is only on the EFF and AT&T. So Wired are fine in posting it. Also, since the document isn't the exact document under seal but an older version, it may not constitute the final evidence given by Klein. Wired is not doing anything legally brave here: they have made sure to cover their asses.
The article fails to mention what the consequences for the EFF are though... (assuming the EFF leaked it to Wired.)
Information wants to be free, and you let it! thanks!
I surely hope so! grmpfb.. enemy of mankind!
I was under the impression that court specifically ordered the EFF not to release the documents.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but Wired News != The EFF. Sure, it might be abusing the legal system but doesn't ATT (and other big corperations) do that all the time?
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Having looked through the documents that Wired provided, I didn't see anything that should qualify as a trade secret of AT&T. The documents do list a bunch of equipment that is located in AT&T's server rooms, including the splitter that lets 'Authorized persons' monitor the data flowing through the fiber optics cable- but it doesn't say how the equipment is connected to each other or what software programs the machines are running. This data is not enough for anyone to duplicate AT&T's network, not even in a small part. The only damage AT&T can expect to receive from the publication of these documents is even more of their customers convinced that they have been letting the NSA take all their information.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?
Of course I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like losing, either, but that's how the game is played.
The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.
You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"
I fully expect Daily Kos to be brimming over with phone switching and network engineering experts in a few hours.
I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.
If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open, they shouldn't have let that information out. There is no such thing as blackmail, in my mind, and there is no fair trial if you're guilty and the information is out there that proves it.
The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.
Of course nothing will happen. Some fines? Some words about terrorism? Do people not see that the worst terrorists are those with the worst weapons?
Even having grown up in communist Poland during the 1960s and 1970s, I cannot say that I've seen such a blatant attack on freedom and liberty.
This gets to the larger issue. As much as I am concerned about spying on Americans, and the mis-deeds of AT&T, I am much more concerned that the administration's actions in putting itself above the law sets a precedence for gross and blatant violation of the law by many. In short, what we have here is the begining of the breakdown of law and order.
That said, how do you fight those who are above the law when you are constrained to play by the rules? Consider that the administration stopped the Justice department investigation into the NSA by refusing to issue clearances to the Justice Department. Any ideas on how to deal with this when the legal system has been co-opted by those who are committing the mis-deeds? Does legality have any meaning in this case?
Certainly NOT!
Any company given over 'private' data (whether it is mine or another citizen's) should be held accountable if they are breaking the law.
Or do we really want to live in a paranoid society run by a paternalistic Government?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
>At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?
Yes, we are a nation of laws. One of our first, and most important ones says:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
The executive branch isn't given the ability to stifle this right simply because some of the facts it exposes might be embarassing or actually illegal. If you really do think this is a nation of laws, you should be complaining about the White House breaking them long before Wired News.
>For those who would try and turn this around to point at the current administration, Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL.
And how exactly would you know that? Because the administration says so? For anyone who even pretends to respect freedom, that's not enough.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
There is nothing propriatry or sensitive in the docs. All they are of a list of fibers that should have an optical splitter inserted. and where the new end should go. Working for a large telco, I have piles and piles of documents like these.
The Docs do not outine what traffic is on those circuits, where they go, or even where the tap goes.
The only thing they show is that there network was changed so that what ever is moving over the fibers is duplicated and sent somewhere else.
Any real conservative would applaud you for your post. It's often thought of that the Republicans are "conservatives". That is incorrect, however. They are not truly conservative in any way.
Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers. They are sickened by any limits on the freedom of expression, especially when it comes to political correctness or legislation that prevents the release of documents as in this case. A true conservative would be happy that you were able to openly present your view on this matter, and they would support you in every way, even if they did disagree with you. A real conservative would likely even be disappointed that there's a moderation system here.
Many of those who pass themselves off as Republicans today are not conservatives at all, even if they claim that they are. At best, they're neo-conservatives, but even then that's a misleading title. What they have done is take the worst of liberalism, and added extreme feelings of nationalism and religion to it. It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society. That is indeed why the Republicans are popular with rednecks in the US, for instance. They are universally disliked by actual conservatives, however.
So please, don't confuse "Republicans" with "conservatives". They are two very distinct groups of people, with two very different attitues toward basic issues such as freedom of expression, individual liberty, and so forth. Every real conservative is completely mortified by the recent goings-on within the US, and their involvement in wars around the world.
Actually I think you have the question inverted. A closer fit to reality would be:
"Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you taken out of the normal public record (which allows the public to track how the government administers justice), before the jury has made their decision?"
And AT&T's apparent answer was "Hot damn! YES!!"
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.
You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"
So all the information in all cases before the courts be made public? I'm sure rape and molestation victims will not appreciate having their ID's and details of the crime made public.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Let us stop this "Bush Administration" mumbo jumbo. This has nothing to do with Bush or the Republicans -- this has to do with pure, raw power. The Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans.
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?
Where are the Democrats who are decrying the laws THEY voted for as foul and evil? This is an election year, though, so we can't really tell if they're just jockeying for the camera or truly meaning they want less evil.
I'm sick of Bush. I was sick of Clinton. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. Don't point the finger at any one party. Bush is a moron, but look who voted for the laws in power today? Both parties.
You can get the files off bittorrent here: http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3487747
...OSHA will!
Check out the photos of the "secret doors". Now, I understand that networking can get a bit messy, but that doesn't justify keeping a needlessly unsafe work area. That place looks like a nightmare! And not even remotely handicap-accessible.
For shame, AT&T... Blatantly violating the US constitution we can overlook, but a dangerously messy work environment? Tsk tsk tsk.
Ah well... on the bright side, if they nailed Al Capone for tax evasion, perhaps we plebes will eventually see some form of justice done in this case.
It seems to me that Wired has decided not to respect fraudulent law makers, which is what the voice of a conscientious people should be doing. I certainly hope that the people's voice when it contests fascism avoids being crushed into silence. I applaud those who have the guts and nobility to push back against criminals where others are too cowardly or ignorant to stand up.
-FL
But seriously, I wonder how long this will stay online. I'd encourage those interested to save a copy, and mirror the crap out of it.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
If you'd read to the end of TFA, you'd have seen this paragraph-
The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the EFF, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. The court explicitly rejected AT&T's motion to include Klein in the gag order and declined AT&T's request to force the EFF to return the documents.
Wired didn't abuse the system, they played right within the rules. This is exactly the sort of case that makes democracies stronger - the government is accused of widespread abuse of power, and tries hard to avoid having any light shed on its case. The press reveals the evidence against the government, and the public gains insight into what their elected leaders are doing. Without an unfettered press, we'd have no clue what they were up to.
Bravo, Wired.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
Okay, so Wired has joined the group of people that have published the informants statements, and judges, being the considered thinkers they are, would not have barred only the EFF if the judge did not want the statements published. One point for the judge on that one. Neither did the judge declare the documents be returned or the informant 'gagged', two more points for the judge. At this point, it looks like a rout on the field of play, AT&T is in trouble. All the disinformation that they have been spreading is shaping up to be the proverbial excrement headed for the oscillating rotary device.
....
Everyone in the world but AT&T and NSA can see the train wreck coming. Time for some timely resignations about now, and please please please can we all drop the bottom out of AT&T stock just now too!
Where is Judge Judy when you need her? I can't wait to see what unimaginable harm this will do to those wanting to take away more and more of my 'rights' as a citizen of the Empire of the Dollar.
No, I'm not posting AC, the American system of laws and justice do have a good balance most of the time, and eventually, if you play with fire long enough, you get burned. I am given the right to discuss, even rant about how my government is serving me. As of today, I still have all of the rights. I would like to see those spying, criminals get the justice they actually deserve.... treason against the people of US.
The right to bear arms is to ensure that the government remains humble, among other things. Despite that fact that this would be a lopsided event, the framers of the constitution did not try to make it impossible for future citizens to remove the government from power. NOW, I'm not saying that we should, for the most part, I like the way the US government works. What I'm unhappy with is that there are entrenched in that government, people who would abuse the power granted to them for their own gain. People who would misuse those power to abuse the rights of citizens for their own gain.
We, the people.... demand to know who those people are, and what they are doing. When the government acts in the dark, hides from the light of oversight, it is time for change... Its a mid-term election year, and 2008 promises to be a special kind of election. So lets all dust off our thinking caps and start taking notes:
Who is making mistakes now?
Who is supporting DRM/*AA/stupid Internet laws?
And so on... then lets all vote accordingly when the time comes, even if it politically seems wrong. A good mix of all three parties, and a few token representatives from the fringe parties is "GOOD FOR AMERICANS" (TM) and thus good for America, America's allies, and the world in general in as much as it affects the world in general.
And, if you're not a US citizen, don't be afraid to share your notes. I'm sure you get different news than we a 'given' here in the US. Lets make it a wiki if we have to
What do you think? Am I off my rocker here?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?
This is almost completely untrue. We are not, and never have been, a nation of laws. Laws aren't at the top of the hierarchy, and hopefully never will be. We are a nation of principles, and all our laws are subject to adherence to those principles.
When someone breaks a law in pursuance of those principles, they do our country a service. If they have the courage of their convictions, they may even be able to get the law overturned. If, on the other hand, it is determined that those principles do not support their action, the law will be upheld, and they will be held accountable for violating it.
Wired, from their own words, seems to believe that they're not even breaking the law (violating the court order) in this case. But if they are, they are clearly doing so in an attempt to bring matters to public attention that many of us feel require more public scrutiny.
So, at what point will the administration remember that we are a nation of principles? They seem to have convienently forgotten the ones they don't like.
Glenn Loos-Austin
UI Designer at Epic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/junkchest/
Bush opponents and privacy advocates have been screaming about how illegal it is (4th amendment violation), and crying over the invasion of privacy. The problem is, it's not illegal. the Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of such issues.
The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the numbers they dial:
[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .
[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
But there is no need to stop at just phone numbers. There is a ton of information collected on you by others that the government can legally obtain and use under this ruling. Consumer data has become so valuable that companies known as data aggregators buy entire data banks from credit card companies, hotel chains, phone companies, etc., mix them with publicly available data from phone books or title companies and then sell access to their mega-database to marketing analysts seeking a comprehensive view of the American consumer.
Anyone with enough cash can find out what someone's mortgage payments are, what restaurants he frequents, what debts he owes and where he banks, whether he subscribes to American Rifleman or Martha Stewart Living, and whether he's more likely to visit Graceland or Greenland, among a thousand other features of his life. Acxiom, for example, the US's largest data aggregator, has 20 billion customer records covering 96 percent of U.S. households. That's a ton of data about you, me, everyone.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the government may obtain business and other records held by third parties without warrant or probable cause, because those records are no longer private . Law enforcement officials may subpoena records, or request that they be provided voluntarily, or may simply purchase data repositories on the market like any other player in the digital economy.
Got that? The NSA could buy records from Acxiom (and all the other aggregators) and mine the shiznit out of it for whatever they want and it's all perfectly legal. From these third parties, they could know an astonishing amount about any one of us. I mean a breathtaking amount. Add in programs like Carnivore and Echelon (and probably and hundred other still classified ones) and you can be sure if the government wants to know everything there is to know about you, they know it. And they got it all legally.
If you don't like that, I can understand - I'm not sure I do either and it would be healthy to have a debate over that topic. However, constantly insisting that laws were broken only shows that you've never put any thought or research into the position you've taken and exposes you for a fool that is probably best ignored.
Does anyone else suspect that AT&T may be receiving special treatment for getting in bed with the fed? The anti-molopy police seem to have been looking the other way as AT&T snatched up BellSouth (the rest of Cingular with it) and SBC.
Good job reading the cover page. Next time, try reading the full article, which continues on with:
... document ... lists the circuit IDs of key Peering Links which were "cut-in" in February 2003, including ConXion, Verio, XO, Genuity, Qwest, PAIX, Allegiance, AboveNet, Global Crossing, C&W, UUNET, Level 3, Sprint, Telia, PSINet and Mae West.
Another
MAE-West is the main interconnect for backbone providers on the west coast. Another key interconnect on the east coast (MAE-East). Klein's document provides solid information that this "secret room" setup was being duplicated at many other AT&T locations, and AT&T is (of course) a member of the MAE-East exchange as well.
So yeah, they are tapping into pretty much all of the US-based internet.
Now, you were saying something about mindlessness?
Actually, AT&T owns a big portion of the backbone lines. There's a good chance that, pretty much no matter where your packets are going, they hit an AT&T controlled line at some point.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Don't you realize that ATT is a backbone, and that a whole lot of the world's internet traffic passes over ATT fiber? They're capable of sniffing a hell of a lot more than their own WorldNet service...
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/casa/martin/atlas/att_ba ckbone_large.gif
Obviously they can't see everything on the internet, but as a backbone provider, they pass traffic originating from many other ISPs. The quote you highlighted taken in this context is much more chilling than it is humorous.
Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.
While I agree that CALEA is an overly broad statute, it does require network operators to be able to provide the capability for court-ordered lawful intercepts. The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could. But from that viewpoint, so could any phone company that controls the local loop for Internet or telephone calls.
Klein makes an incorrect intuitive leap when he says that since AT&T Narus system is spliced into their links to Verio, Genuity, UUNet, etc. that means they can read the entire internet. This is wrong, they can only read traffic that has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA. The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).
On the issue of NSA being involved in this, it is possible that this system wasn't implemented for CALEA, but instead to allow NSA to wiretap conversations that had been discovered to be heading out of the country, and then requested to be intercepted. For instance, if they had an IP address of some mail server in Iraq, they could tell (legally without a warrant) AT&T to give them logs and conversations from any AT&T customer, over any AT&T network link, specifically to that foreign IP address. Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.
Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees. Which would be a logical part of the protection of a CALEA lawful intercept operation from being tampered with by foreign agents, or non-authorized parties.
AT&T is neither a rape nor a molestation victim. They are not even a victim at all. I'd say it's a tad difference when a court keeps documents a secret to spare the pain to a child than to help a monolithic corporation conceal it's blatant attack on privacy and it's assistance in setting up the infrastructure of an Orwellian police state.
That's a great pro-anarchy speech you got there, what do you suggest, give no one power? Government is needed for society.
*Currently* the Bush administration is at fault with this issue, so we blame Bush. Pretty simple.
MABASPLOOM!
Bush's Attorney General, Gonzales, wants to figure out how to twist any possible law covering journalism and national security into prosecuting journalists for publishing leaked info. Even though WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Iraq War Sr and Jr, were all fought well without jailing leak publishers.
Bush certainly has "a new kind of war" in the Terror War: our goverment is at war with our people.
--
make install -not war
and given how much the law has been twisted by a cerain administration lately, who is to say what cannot be construed as "aid" is say- a whistleblower letting the US cits know what is going on.
what defines "aid"???
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Being "in trouble" is a good thing in these circumstances.
If you don't publicly challenge the actions of the people who are trying to oppress you, you will lose by default.
Freedom is not free. Our forefathers were willing to die for it. The least we can do is risk some jail time (don't forget to vote!).
Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers.
And yet our founding father executed several people as spies - for publishing military information to our enemies. The situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be. (For example, by having Wired publish this we are having the least informed person make the disclosure decision. Remember, these programs have bi-partisan Congressional oversight - but only by the security committee. The Congressmen that are posturing are just using the fact that they are not on the committe for political gain. Don't be naive, look for the motivations of your representative.)
It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society.
Ah - no bias here! Honestly, the same could be said about any political party. Half of the people have an IQ less than 100. Very few have a high IQ (above 140 or so). Dumb people out vote you, get over it. (As a collorary to what I said above, your representative is primarily conserned with convincing those that do not check facts, but watch the news. Always check the facts! [BTW, as a republican you should be reading this site for an opposing viewpoint. I'm not sure what you should do as a Democrat - is the Drudge Report any good?])
And I find it laughable that someone (the grandparent) is worried about getting modded down by conservatives. Conservatives? Slashdot?
Watch, this comment will be modded down by liberals - virtually guaranteed!
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia? Marching in the street, protesting the bombing. You probably saw them on TV and made fun of them. Probably called them "hippies," shouted some drunken inanity like: "The Sities are over!" Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City? Protesting the reduction of our civil liberties. Some of us "anti-Bush liberals" (we weren't "anti-Bush" then, as he wasn't around, but that is quibbling) have been members of the ACLU for a long, long time. Some of us "liberals" put money, not just angry verbiage and blustering internet bravado, into our resistance to increasing government power. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. This is true - but when Clinton was President, the Democratic Party did not have the monopoly on power the Republicans enjoy in Congress today. There were GOP leaders (Bob Barr chief among them) who defended civil liberties - and still do. Barr is persona non grata in the party now because of his principled non-partisan defense of civil liberties. Dismissing both parties as "monsters" is just as ridiculous, perhaps even moreso, than partisan loyalty. In your case, your thoughtless position not only offers no solution itself, your juvenile dismissal of "both parties" allows for no improvement, no room for rational discussion. I join you in the sentiment that both parties contain "professional politicians" - people who seek power or political office as a means in itself, rather than a means to better society and worked toward a progressive future. But so what? Judging by your example, the political parties are not the only ones with members who are incapable of seeing beyond their own petty self-interests and prejudices.
--- yr pal cal "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
You appear to assume two things which I strongly disagree with. . .
1. That "standard operating procedures" are not heavily fixed, (see recent appointments to the supreme court), so that Bush's morally defunct policies are upheld, (ie., the individual cannot fight abuse by the coroporate body),
2. That there is some semblance of similarity between a person and a giant corporation like AT&T. --Corporations have been demonstrated countless times to function without social conscience, without moral grounding, and with reckless disregard for others, among a whole host of other elements which give them all the basic behavioral traits as those held by psychopaths. The people here who are applauding Wired's actions are probably NOT psychopaths. The law SHOULDN'T give the same benefits and considerations to corporations as they do to individuals.
-FL
The word "treason" has been so abused by people trying to steal the Rights that our Forefathers died for that it is meaningless in today's political discussions.
At it's most pure form, "treason" means attempting to destroy the government.
So, going public with details on what may be an illegal operation by the government is in no way "treason". Except to those who would like to claim that any actions they don't approve of would "hurt" the government (translation: "them and their party") and "help" the "enemy".
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
So the boys at Wired are only in trouble if enough people believe what Mr. Gonzales has to say.
One of the near truths we've been taught is the power of the government is defined and limited by the Constitution. Oh, it's a consistent theory of course, but only self-consistent. It's a convenient ficiton, not how things actually work.
The power of the government is defind and limited by what the people will go along with. The Constitution is just lists that out. Not even that really -- it's our understanding of what the Constitution says that empowers or limits government. Nonetheless, the Constitution is a powerful check on the government because as malleable a it is, it is nowhere near as vague as the concept of an "electroal mandate".
Which is why we've had such as bumper crop of semantic creativity out of Washington around the definitions of "unlawful combatant", "torture", "war" and "domestic surveillance". One way to change the law and the Constitution is alter the language out from under it.
These are not the sort of men whose wordplay is motivated by the sheer pleasure of it, and it's quality shows it. It's a brutal and ghastly affair, obsessed with the redistribution of power.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why bother interviewing the reporter to find out his anon source? just look up his call records for the last couple of weeks and they can find out for themselves.
There are still public pay telephones about, and inexpensive disposable cell telephones are common.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.
I suspect it was regulatory compliance and security budget that funded this installation, but it is a little "above and beyond."
The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could.
I agree, but this does look very suspicious and it is certainly worth investigating. We were commanded to be "eternally vigilant" against our own government. This should be investigated and NSA files and procedures reviewed to determine just what is occurring. I see no national security reason to keep this secret (aside from, possibly, the contents of some actual intercepted communications).
This is wrong, they can only read traffic that[sic] has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA.
I take it you've never heard of transit traffic?
The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).
Yup, at any given time, although I doubt AT&T has their connection constantly maxed out, so we don't know the real traffic rate percentage this can monitor. We also have no idea what the capacity of the storage they are using for forensic analysis of this data is, nor how long they are keeping it. Hopefully the average load, the regexps matched (at least in general), and the procedures in place will shed some light on this.
Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.
The courts have not yet ruled on this (and I suspect they will find the NSA in violation) and I think the "reasonable expectation of privacy" of the average citizen is pretty clear here.
Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees.
That seems more than a little far-fetched to me.
In my mind, I don't know what they were doing, but I think the circumstantial evidence is rather strong. The problem is, I don't trust that a proper investigation will be performed, given the current and obvious corruption of our government. I would like to compliment you, however, on at least providing some of the only rational discourse in this thread.
The Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans.
Bullshit.
Name one period in history where this has happened when the Democrats held all od the power.
Yes, there are craven power seekers in the Democratic party. They're politicians, after all. But there is one essential thing lacking on the Democratic side: absolute party unity. Republicans have it, Democrats don't.
I consider myself to the left of the spectrum. I have been a registered Democrat at times. Today I learned that a Democratic representative took a bribe. You know what my immediate reaction is? Prosecute the bastard. When it comes to criminals I have no party loyalty. More often than not (and we've seen it in the whole Abramoff debacle) the reaction of Republicans is to circle the wagon, no matter how despicable the behavior. This is not something I see nearly as much on the Democratic side.
Pertaining to the leaked document, does anyone find it odd that even though the splitters where installed, there is no activation date for any of them? (Page 13)
You're kidding, right? Slashdot is pretty far right. Look at the discussion any time the question of trade unionism comes up. One can hardly call this a left-wing consensus. The number of Thatcherites and Ayn Rand fetishists here is amazing. You'd struggle to find someone on /. seriously favouring the nationalisation of all industry, mass organised labour and a really high (like say 90%) top rate of income tax. THAT would be left-wing.
If there's a political consensus on /., it's a very individualist one. We're hackers, solitary creatures uncomfortable with being interfered with by either governments or corporations. It's right-wing, but also anarchistic, what you might call libertarian.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could.
So, what's all the fuss about? Why was there a gag order on this information?
Seems that somebody thinks that this information reveals something important, and I figure they know a lot more than you...
The shocking thing in this case is not that Wired would leak the evidence, it's what the evidence contains, and the fact that it was kept secret. As the wired article concludes:
"This is the infrastructure for an Orwellian police state. It must be shut down!"
I'm sure that liberal and conservative nerds alike can recognize that there ought not to be a splitter on the optic fibers carrying your internet communications, that is monitorable by the NSA without a warrant or oversight.
Remember that when Qwest checked with their lawyers and tried to follow the law, the government (after accusing them of being unpatriotic, of course) threatened them with loss of government contracts.
This is MUCH MUCH different than a rape case. The plantiff in this case, is essentially, the entire general public of the U.S. Almost all of use could be/are affected by this. Being part of the plantiff's side, we should all have access to the information in the trial.
Hiring crooks (either convicted or suspected) is pretty much the norm for the Bush Administration. Consider Elliot Abrams, guilty of withholding information from Congress, and John Negroponte, widely suspected of complicity with death squads in Honduras and Iraq.
I take it you've never heard of transit traffic?
I have, but usually AT&T is not going ot have the "best path" to customers of UUNet, for example, except to an AT&T transit customer. Which qualifies as traffic that AT&T could be asked to intercept.
BTW, I agree that this whole AT&T/Narus/NSA situation is a terrible assualt on liberty, I just want to be sure that people put the blame where it belongs. The congressmen and senators that write these bad laws, the presidents for signing them, and the voters who keep electing them all.
>Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?
Well, presumably my lawyer would insist on jury members who hadn't read the evidence.
If everyone in the world has seen evidence and made up their mind, my lawyer could ask for dismissal on the grounds that pretrial publicity made a fair trial impossible.
And if I'd asked to have evidence sealed as a "trade secret", and it turned out that it was nothing of the kind, I'd kind of expect the judge to hit me on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and say "BAD litigant!".
AT&T, you voided your right to keep your proprietary information locked up as trade secrets when you chose to engage in illegal activities with the government, conspiring to undermine our inalienable constitutional rights, namely the fourth and first amendments (and possibly the fifth in some cases if the "fishing" does turn up a crime). As bad as it is for pedophiles and terrorist and crack dealers to get away with what they're doing, I'd choose dealing with having those scumbags continue doing what they're doing than to lose my inalienable constitutional rights.
You got caught committing treason, and are now crying foul and are in essence trying to use the "trade secret" crap to get out of trouble and not lose customer confidence? Sorry, too late.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
But Wired did not violate any rules here....
EFF was under the gag order. Wired was not.
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
It is fear of the consequences of breaking a law that enslaves the People.
When you lose your fear, you are Free. Again, our Forefathers were willing to die for their beliefs. And they publicly signed the Declaration of Independence even though it would be their death warrant if they lost.
Now, too many of us are willing to trade that Freedom for a false security. Too many of us live in fear of the consequences of Freedom.
My, that was a yummy potato!
"Treason is all a matter of dates." - Clarion, Count of Monte Cristo
Well, all things are relative, I suppose. I think they are pretty far left, except in the things you mentioned ;-}
The thing is, it is very hard for the upper x% to argue for anything other than a meritocracy. Unions serve to make everyone get the same rewards, regardless of effort or ability - so it brings up the slackers and down the hackers, so you can easily see why hackers would be against it.
A simpler metric might be: Who thinks that Clinton is better than Bush? Who thinks that Bush is better than Clinton?
Or if that is unfair, who was better Regan or Clinton? Both men seemed to be very popular with their constituancies - where do you think slashdot would fall?
Personally, I don't really think Slashdot is that far left, really. I think that most of the annoying adolescents are far left, and they are the ones giving the crazy mods.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Anonymous Troll. I /spit on you.
If you are doing something illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid maybe the NSA's monitoring system will make you think twice about doing it.
This argument is perhaps the single worst position one can hold in a discussion of rights.
Anytime one hears this, the intelligence and/or motives of the speaker should immediately be cast into doubt. Either you aren't intelligent enough to understand the issues at hand, have not thought about them at length, or are trying to do something evil.
Rights are not to protect the innocent. Rights are not to protect the "good people". Rights are there to protect the conglomerate of the human race. The guilty, the despised, the evil, the criminals, the dictators, the masterminds of genocide; each and every one of these has the same rights as you and me, except in so far as they can be demonstrably proven to utilize their rights to infringe yours or mine.
Furthermore, lets look at how you qualified that statement: illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid
1. Illegal: Yes, the government should be involved in cases of illegality.
2. Immoral: No, the government should NOT be involved in cases of what is or is not immoral. There is no universal standard of immorality. If you ask conservative Christian groups, they would say the Da Vinci Code movie was immoral, as it blasphemed their lord. If you talked to Catholic groups, they would say that contraception is immoral. If you talk to conservative Islamic groups, they would say that equal rights for non-believers and/or women are immoral. The government should not be picking and choosing ANY of these battles; and you should not fear for your own moral framework based upon the governments.
3. Nasty: If what you are doing is _legal_, it doesn't matter if it is nasty. There's no prohibition against being bad tempered, or even "evil". The prohibition is against illegal actions. If it infringes someone elses rights, than make it illegal, and handle it through a court of law, same as everything else the U.S. and/or state governments enforce against.
4. Dumb: Being dumb is a right. You have a right to fuck up as much as you like. As long as it is legal, the NSA should not be involved in your personal stupidity. You have a right to be as stupid as anyone else.
5. Stupid: See #4.
Here is a little better discussion of the matter. In a nutshell, determing what is "illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid" is extremely difficult, and I'm not interested in having the government determine what is and is not deviant. 70 years ago Congress would have said that surveillance of Negroes (Yes, that term is _exactly_ what Congress would have used for African-Americans)and Chinamen (Yes, this is ALSO another term that has graced the halls of Congress).
Today, there are movements with Congress to criminalize homosexuality and conduct open and unlimited surveillance/detention of AMERICAN CITIZENS of Middle Eastern origin (like myself). Might I remind you of the McCarthy era, and the House Commitee on Un-American Activities?
Joseph McCarthy, an incurable (and perhaps constant) drunk, paranoid, and somesay schizophrenic asshole routinely used phrases like, "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?"
Do you honestly believe that fascists like Rear Admiral John Poindexter, made infamous for his roll in Iran-Contra, who escaped life-long imprisonment on a technicality, and whom the Republic Party has now put in charge of the militaries "Total Information Awareness" (renamed Terrorist Information Awareness, har har), is more scrupulous than Joseph McCarthy?
Do you honestly believe that the rhetoric involved describing the constant hunt for terrorists in our borders, and the American People's demands for security is *ANY* differen
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
>Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL.
SecurityFocus columnist Mark Rasch thinks the pen register statute applies, forbidding the collection of call records with a court order or a FISA warrant. His opinion is also that even with a warrant the surveillance has to be targeted. One loophole might be that the phone companies keep this kind of data as an inevitable part of their operations and can share it if they choose -- but 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) forbids them to turn it over to the government. Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) is also protected under 47 USC 222. Then there's the issue of breach of contract, or fraud, from the telcos violating their privacy policies. The remaining wiggle room is not enough to say "perfectly legal", let alone "perfectly LEGAL".
Mark Rasch is a former prosecutor and holds a Juris Doctor degree. He's former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit.
My wife walks past that building on the way to work every day. She has been calling it the "Spy Headquarters" ever since she first saw it. It just LOOKS guilty... It's almost hollywood in it's attempt to look like a secret NSA headquarters (completely "abandoned", but without the graphiti and homeless that a typical abandoned building in that area draws, and except for the mysterious lights that are only on at certian hours of the day and night only on the floors with the blinds drawn)...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
While I'm not a Libertarian, and I don't have much use for the Ayn Rand crowd, I don't find it' particularly helpful to view Libertarians as strictly right-wing.
Viewing political ideologies as left-right is too simplistic. I like the Nolan chart or other spectrum approaches better.
"When did commiting crimes become ok in the name of patriotism?"
You clearly learned nothing from the American Revolution. Had that revolution failed, every person who signed the Declaration of Independence would have been drawn and quartered as a traitor.
Ever wonder why your signature is referred to as your "John Hancock"? Take a look at a picture of the Declaration of Independence some day. You'll see that by far the largest, most prominent signature is that of John Hancock. This was not him being arrogant - this was him making sure they knew his name. This was an act of courage on his part.
You're replying under the assumption of "The ends never justify the means." Which in almost all cases is true.
The one case where it is NOT true is the attempt to fight for freedom and save our liberties from disappearing. That is what our Founding Fathers did. They were criminals until they successfully won the Revolution.
And so it is now, for people who stand up to our government and say "You cannot trample our rights and liberties. We will stop you." The government considers them criminals (and those who have swallowed the "party" line).
People who care about freedom consider them heroes.
I am in the latter group.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
except he was right. he was modded down, while your totally off-topic post modded insightful. yes, i know. i'm gonna get modded down too now, oh well. amazing how many moderators mod based on agreement with the opinion, not the validity of the opinion itself.
Although I applaud standing one's ground, you must understand that of those who don't there is a portion who aren't simply caving in - they are taking a calculated decision.
:)
Do I...
A. Stand by ground, go to jail, and spend the next 4-8 years there pretty much powerless.
or
B. Let them win this one, and be free to fight another day that isn't 4-8 years into the future - like the next day.
Which option one chooses -should- be carefully considered.. I presume GP did
( not saying they would actually go to jail, let alone for 4-8 years )
but fairly vaguely....
Article III, Section 3, states:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."
The issue at hand is who are the enemies, and what does it mean to give them aid and comfort. The definitions in the Consitution are so vague that in this case, one could argue that expressing solidarity with Palestinian children killed in Israeli air strikes could be treason.
Certainly one could argue that this publication is treason, but to do so, IMO, would be to levy war against the democratic system of the United States and would also be arguably treason.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Civil disobedience doesn't really work in private. There's a reason you'd actively choose to host it on your website.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
NOW the "Get Smart" guys build a "secret room" right in the bleepin Ma Bell building! And said room is of course (a) On the building plans, in duplicatre. (b) Known to everybody, as they're not allowed to go in there. (c) Uses scads of bulky and hot, and easily-identifiable off-the-rack equipment.
Sheesh!
Well, my point was that an optical circuit doesn't automatically mean "IP". UUNet was MCI is now Verizon, and I doubt those OC192's are only carrying IP traffic. There's bound to be cross connections between CO's carrying POTS, PRIs and non IP circuits that could be carrying financial transactions, for example. The document is trying to create a connection to TIA which had a financials survillence component to it. Yeah, thanks for noticing my typo. AFAIK, the Narus is an IP interceptor only and I don't see (offhand, I'm not an expert on this type of gear) any non IP interception equipment here. There's also no evidence of a pipe line going offsite into the NSA itself. I'm having a hard time believing this is the TIA fear re-visited. There's not a lot of evidence to suggest any wrong doing, technically or organizationally. We don't know who has access to this equipment, we don't know if there are pipes feeding into the NSA directly. We don't know what protocols are in place for disclosure. I guess that's the problem, we don't know enough.
The AT&T case at issue is believed to relate to the warrentless surveillance of the content of phone calls between people within the US and people overseas. This is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It states:
A "United States person" is a citizen or resident alien. It goes on to state other conditions. There is no evidence that any of these conditions (either excluding US persons or submitting of the oath of certification) have been followed in this case; therefore, the program is in violation of the law. Usually people call this "illegal".
Now, you could say it's "perfectly legal" in the sense that this seemingly clear violation of the law may be construed to be an exception under a radical interpretation of law held by a few appointees of the administration. Usually, though, a few people with vested interests offering a controversial argument that an action may be legal would not be termed, "perfectly LEGAL."
Attorney General Gonzales has argued that either a) Congress gave the executive the extra authority for this program under the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan or b) FISA is unconstitutional. (a) seems like a strange argument given that Gonzales has said elsewhere that they did not ask Congress for permission specifically becuase they feared they would be denied. (b) requires a very extreme interpretation of presidential power (essentially that the executive can break any law passed by Congress as long as they say it's for the war on terror). Anyway, if you're really interested in why Gonzales arguements are bogus, don't take my word for it, check out what this collection of eminent legal and constitutional scholars had to say.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Interpret that as you will. I will point out, however, that constitution limitations on the scope of a treason charge did not prevent lilly-levered members of congress from defining certain other acts as sedition.
Which of course makes it possible for the creative crypto-designer to work around this particular device type, if necessary. But I would think that any reasonably encrypted channel is immune to this automatic filtering.
Here is a good blog entry on the technical aspects of the AT&T-NSA scandal.
"CIA SAIC ET AL"
SAIC is a government defense contractor that my company sometimes does business with, and they are a (former) business partner of ours.
Ironically, nobody in my office that worked with them has anything good to say about them; the impression I get is one of massive incompetence.
Now, the "SAIC" in that list may not actually mean this company, but it would make sense, given the business they are in.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
More like:
Do I...
A. Stand by ground, go to jail, and spend the next 4-8 years there pretty much powerless.
or
B. Let them win this one, and contribute my own little piece of the destruction of the freedom I supposedly had.
There's a name for what we believe here: Libertarianism.
It stands for fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, the government should only be responsible for national defence, citizenship and a handful of essential public services - small government, low tax, lasse-faire, centrist, etc.
Well, the issue isn't that your phone records are stored in a telco database. The issue is that the government was (allegedly) examining phone records without legal permission to do so. They need a warrant for that, and to get a warrant, they need to convince a judge that they have credible evidence suggesting that you might be a criminal.
Examining the phone records of a particular person who's suspected of a crime is OK. Examining the phone records of large numbers of people who are not suspected of crimes, just in case might turn out to be a criminal after all, is not OK. The reason it's not OK is that pervasive surveillance of innocent people is regarded as more harmful to society than the few additional criminals it might catch.
Remember that the ultimate goal is not to catch all terrorists at any cost. The ultimate goal is to preserve the existence of the nation and our way of life, and that involves catching as many terrorists (and other criminals) as possible without sacrificing the rights and freedoms that define our society.
I think you misread the parent. I think they were talking about a progressive tax rate that reached 90% for people at the highest income levels. The reason people think this is a bad idea because they think that it undermines successful people and promotes mediocrity.
However, this is a simplistic argument that has at least one false premise: people are paid according to their contribution to society. You only have to compare the salaries of c-level executives to the average salary of people that work in their companies, teachers and social workers to professional athletes and/or people that were born into money versus those that were born into a family making below the poverty line. People are frequently not making an income based on their competence, success, hard work or any other factor attributable to themselves.
More often than not, it's dumb luck. If you accept that as true, then you can give a little more credibility to arguments that there should be a more equitable distribution of income to counter the effects of luck while at the same time supporting those things that are valuable to society - such as hard work, competence and so forth.
As far as politics go, you should also take a look at the political compass diagram, and take the test. As a benchmark, try taking a look at the 2004 Presidential Election and then the other countries. Notice how most fall in the upper right quadrant? If you think in terms of Clinton or Kerry being "left", then yes, Slashdot might be left in that sense - but still firmly in the same authoritarian right quadrant.
If you think "left" in terms of Gandhi and Stalin, then Slashdot isn't left at all - either with an authoritarian or libertarian aspect. But, it is like you said: what's left is relative to where you stand. The thrust of Slashdot follows the larger pattern that you can see in most governments - which is a right, authoritarian bias. It can be hard to see - especially in cultures like the U.S. that have such a narrow range of political expression, but tools like the political compass can be useful to get your bearings.
Only our lifetime? He's being unduly kind.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?