Interview with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell

Schneier is reporting that Mike McConnell, U.S. National Intelligence Director, recently gave an interesting interview to the El Paso Times. "I don't think he's ever been so candid before. For example, he admitted that the nation's telcos assisted the NSA in their massive eavesdropping efforts. We already knew this, of course, but the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security."

Comments

Dupe!

[A beautiful mind]

Dupe.

That's what I'm wondering

[TubeSteak]

For example, he admitted that the nation's telcos assisted the NSA in their massive eavesdropping efforts. We already knew this, of course, but the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security." Can't they use his admission in the AT&T trial?

You kinda wonder who thought it'd be a good idea to let him say what he did.

Re:That's what I'm wondering

[arivanov]

Who cares about the ATT trial. RTFA for f*** sake.

There in the first paragraphs he basically states that his primary objective when he came in was to make any communication between foreign parties handled by an American entity and passing via an American wire or fibre a fair game with no judicial oversight for purposes of foreign intelligence including one for purely economical purposes. Nothing to do with terrorism or domestic surveillance. Terrorism comes much later as an excuse.

Now add to that the particular insistence of this administration that an American person or corporation has to comply with American laws anywhere around the world and what does this mean from the perspective of "using american communications" and you get the real picture of what is this all about. It is not surprising that while they got lucky via judge-shopping the first time they got stopped the second time.

Re:That's what I'm wondering

[monkey_dongle]

Not a sworn statement. Unless it gets put in an affidavit or elicited at deposition (or trial) it's irrelevant. Many public statements have been made, but there's no accounting for the veracity of them unless they're sworn according to the legal standard. The 9th Cir. Court of Appeals specifically said this at the AT&T (EFF) class action hearing on the Govts. motion to dismiss a couple of weeks ago.

Transcript here
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/D654A11D7A675 986882573380083A50C/$file/06-17132.wma?openelement

Video here
http://www.archive.org/details/gov.courts.ca9.20 07.08.16

EFF here.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005408.php

Re:That's what I'm wondering

[arivanov]

Not quite so.

The world has changed dramatically since the mid 80-es. In the mid-80es the world was a world of national telco monopolies. French traffic stayed in France not traversing a single US fibre. German traffic stayed in Germany and so on. If you wanted to tap a conversation you had to get down and dirty and tap it locally. And most importantly the spooks had to do this themselves. Backdooring ATT switches did not really give them anything as far as Alcatel switches in France or the Marconi ones in the UK were concerned.

That is no longer the case. Nowdays a packet from a point A to a point B outside USA has a fair chance of passing across at least several pieces of USA owned infrastructure that are not on USA soil. USA telecommunication companies operate franchises and services all over the world. One of the conditions to do so is that they are regulated under the local legislation. Local legislation in most of the world explicitly prohibit such shit and so far US companies have usually stayed clear from such activities.

What Mr McConnell wants is essentially to give himself a free reign regarding forcing them to engage in surveillance for him globally and for purposes completely different from fighting terrorism. Just read the first 2 paragraphs from his interview and add to that the rabid insistence of this USA administration that USA laws apply to a USA corp or cittizen regardless of where it is.

This is a very different ball game compared to the 80-es and frankly this is likely to backfire very badly.

Re:Old News

[Xonstantine]

All this means is they've either found another way to intercept the data, or the people they are trying to track are no longer using phone calls for communication, so it's ok to release the info. Otherwise, it was exceedingly stupid to give out the information, because once it's out you can pretty much count on that the folks you are trying to track will change their methods, same way Bin Laden started using personal envoys instead of Sat phones after it was leaked that we can track the sat phone calls.

well not exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die? A. That's what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason, you know, it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing. We need to have the debate.

interesting that he somehow connects the leak about domestic spying and our people dying. we've lost more people in Iraq and pissed off a lot more people than the domestic spying could ever prevent.

Re:well not exactly

[Xonstantine]

I'm very concerned about my civil liberties, but I'm even more concerned that the the next time I take the 'plane, the bus, the subway - or I'm just sitting at my desk, or on holiday with my family - I might get wiped out by some terrorist. I'm more concerned about my civil liberties. In the end, government can do very little to protect us but can certainly make our lives miserable while trying. The problem with all these terrorism laws is, despite ostensibly to fight a temporary battle, they stick around and get used for every day mundane law enforcement. Sort of like the telecom tax used to pay for the Spanish American war...these things tend to stick around long after their original purpose has lapsed.

And I say these things as a big time conservative. It's like torture. I can honestly see situations where it would be acceptable (ticking nuclear bomb scenario, for example), but legalizing it is a really bad idea because it encourages too much potential abuse.

We're all aiding the terrorists

[Ffakr]

I suspect that some officials are beginning to feel the wall against their backs.
I read sections of this article and it's like reading an interview with a government in Bizarro world, we'll it's like reading an interview with just about anyone in this Administration I suppose.

McConnell admitted the Telecos were in on illegal wiretapping (yes it was illegal, the FISA courts have told Bush this several times). He then went on to say that they should get immunity because that revelation would hurt their buisiness. He claims to be affraid it would put them out of business. Way to teach big corporations to not engage in illegal activities, grant them blanket immunity.

McConnell described how many people in and out of the US were currently under surveillance. He gave out more detail than anyone [I've seen] has been asking about. The critics of illegal wiretapping don't ask for methods and proceedures they just want this done within the constraints of the law. McConnell was getting awfully close to giving out dangerous information.
McConnell then states that publication of this information will kill Americans. No Shit, he said that. First off, it's hyperbole.. he didn't give out that much info but he started to get close. Second, why the fuck is National Intelligence Director giving out information to a reporter that will get Americans killed? I suspect he believes that.

There's something wrong with McConnell.

Impeach everyone

Re:We're all aiding the terrorists

[Billosaur]

There's something wrong with McConnell.

Yes, he was being candid. Does that make him a loon? No. Look, half the trouble with domestic surveillance and spying in general is that people know it's going on, in their hearts they know it's an important source of information to prevent bad things from happening, but their psyches can't get wrapped around the idea that someone may be watching them. Take work for example -- you hear stories all the time about people being caught at work doing illegal things, usually because of emails or browsing records or surveillance video. Most of us are being spied on in the workplace and a) think nothing of it, b) are blissfully unaware of it, or c) are skeeved out by it. The vast majority of people fall into a) and b). The same holds true for what the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. do. But it's one thing when it's your employer spies on you -- you can always change jobs. It's another thing entirely when it is your government, working behind closed doors in a nebulous fashion and screeching "State Secrets!" with every other breath.

I think he was trying to let out enough information that some people might have their fears somewhat allayed. Of course he couldn't say too much without going into details that would compromise operations or get into hot water with the White House, but he did the best he could.

Re:We're all aiding the terrorists

[sumdumass]

You have a few factual problems with your statement. Fist, the FISA court (not courts seeing how there is only one) hasn't told Bush this was illegal. The only court to do so had their ruling over turned and that isn't getting into the fact of accusations of conflict in interest that could have influence the overturned ruling.

Now the judges of the secrete "FISA court" have expressed their outrage but none of them have put it into a ruling or anything legal. I also don't see this as anyone with their backs against the wall. It is just another round of going on the offense. Unfortunately, for this administration, it seems like that is something new so I can understand your misinterpreting it.

Re:We're all aiding the terrorists

[nuzak]

I always counter "I have nothing to hide, so you have no reason to look. Got reasonable suspicion? Demonstrate it to a judge who grants you the authority and makes a record of it."

Apparently, a vague word like "reasonable" is the lynchpin of all liberty. We have to trust politicians to be reasonable. We're screwed.

Every time Congress debates, terrorists kill USans

[sepluv]

Last week, he also said that, if the US Congress debates spy laws, "some Americans are going to die".

Here's a quote from the interview with El Paso Times:

Q. So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die?
A. That's what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason, you know, it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing.

What's this guy smoking? Or maybe it is a threat to the members of congress à la the film, Enemy of the State.

hey

[unity100]

you might have missed the point. we are not here for the actual news itself. we are here for what people say in comments in regard to that news. this is the /. crowd.

Re:hey

[gr3kgr33n]

It doesn't even have to regard the news in question.

We are here for the "Mod parent Up", "Mod parent Down" proxy moderators with the assumption the majority of moderators are idiots. Oh wait..

I choose to browse at sqrt($score) so this post is going to become imaginary very soon.

I vote for a new Moderation Choice

Proxy Moderation (-5)

Re:Every time Congress debates, terrorists kill US

[sepluv]

FTR, that's actually the same interview. (Doh!)

See Wikipedia: Enemy of the State if you haven't seen it (good film). Although, the NSA murder a senator in that case (not a congressman) who refuses to vote for increased warrantless surveillance.

"U.S. National Intelligence"

[Dice Fivefold]

"U.S. National Intelligence" -- Hmm, isn't that like an oxymoron?

Secrecy for its own sake ?

[richg74]

... the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security.

One of the things that is so ridiculous -- almost surreal -- about the government's position on this is that they seem, on the one hand, to attribute almost mystical powers to potential terrorists (they can blow up a plane with 4 ounces of nail polish remover !!!), and on the other hand to assume that they're dumber than rocks. The administration has said they're snooping on phone calls and E-mail; I don't think it takes a terrorist Einstein to figure out that they might be getting assistance from folks like AT&T.

To take another example, the administration claimed, a while back, that national security was threatened by a story that they were monitoring international funds transfers through SWIFT. Of course, various members of the government had given speeches urging that financial links to potential terrorists be blocked. And, the last time I looked, SWIFT (the international body that develops standards and procedures for funds transfers) had 8,000+ member banks. Its existence is hardly a closely-guarded secret, and I don't think it would take too many Nobel Prize winners to figure out that transfers through SWIFT might be monitored.

This is a managed interview

[E-Sabbath]

Look how much the man speaks, compared to how little the interviewer speaks. There are no slips in this interview, and there are a very large amount of omissions. Of course, all the omissions are of things that would be blatantly illegal, and we do know some of them are occurring. (Surveillance of all American phone calls at the switch level, for example. The taps are in, even if unused.) It only makes me exceptionally curious as to what he's hiding, because I certainly get the impression he's hiding something.

All Well And Good...

[HobophobE]

You know, I'm really glad we have these government agencies so eager to set up this net and catch information exclusively about terrorist activities overseas that threaten our interests. The problem is they do not seem to understand (or want to) the implications of their actions.

Setting up a tap into the wires that carry ANY American's communication without some sort of check on their power to thwart abuse is unacceptable. As in, 'in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.' They have to put some kind of oversight in place and it can't be Albert Gonzales. It has to be judicial branch.

They could have amended the FISA law to remain legal (ie, concordant with the Constitution), but instead they passed a law that does indeed violate the Constitution. And that's pretty scary, that these agencies and our President and our Congress are not sensitive to protecting the law.

There's some strong arguments against the whole program. Slashdot covered the issue of 'well what if someone hacks the tap?' and that's a big problem. There's huge potential for abuse of power, as well. And there's always the prospect of the erosion of trust within a society which leads to totalitarian-style culture. There's enough doubt about the value of this thing that it should be forced through the courts.

There's still no evidence having the exact specifications of a pending attack on the USA would enable our government to do anything to prevent it. On September 11, 2001 attacks happened despite sufficient warning. They lacked the will to properly defend the country then. Now is no different.

Re:Every time Congress debates, terrorists kill US

[toddhisattva]

if the US Congress debates spy laws, "some Americans are going to die".
[....]
What's this guy smoking? He is smoking his job.

Imagine that you have his job. And imagine that you take it seriously.

Working against you, from your point of view, is a very leaky organization - Congress.

As part of your job, you must talk to people like Reyes (D-Texas) and Leahy (D-Vermont) and Specter (D-Rino).

People who would disclose secrets regarding sources and methods, just to get a vote.

Industry Ties

[jkonrad]

Earlier this year, Salon had an article detailing McConnell's extensive private sector connections with the very telecommunication companies for which he is now demanding immunity:

McConnell, a retired vice admiral and former director of the National Security Agency, is the current director of defense programs at Booz Allen Hamilton.

With revenues of $3.7 billion in 2005, Booz Allen is one of the nation's biggest defense and intelligence contractors. Under McConnell's watch, Booz Allen has been deeply involved in some of the most controversial counterterrorism programs the Bush administration has run, including the infamous Total Information Awareness data-mining scheme. As a key contractor and advisor to the NSA, Booz Allen is almost certainly participating in the agency's warrantless surveillance of the telephone calls and e-mails of American citizens...

Booz Allen, along with Science Applications International Corp., General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, CACI International and a few other corporations, is one of the dominant players in intelligence contracting. Among its largest customers are the NSA, which monitors foreign and domestic communications, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, an amalgamation of the imagery divisions of the CIA and the Pentagon that was established in 2003. . . .

Buried deep on the company's Web site, however, I recently found an explanation of a Booz Allen I.T. contract with the Defense Intelligence Agency, which carries out intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. It states that the Booz Allen team "employs more than 10,000 TS/SCI cleared personnel." TS/SCI stands for top secret-sensitive compartmentalized intelligence, the highest possible security ratings. This would make Booz Allen one of the largest employers of cleared personnel in the United States.

Among the many former spooks on Booz Allen's payroll are R. James Woolsey, the well-known neoconservative and former CIA director; Joan Dempsey, the former chief of staff to CIA Director George Tenet and recently executive director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; and Keith Hall, the former director of the National Reconnaissance Office, the super-secret organization that oversees the nation's spy satellites. . . . .

And in a relationship that has been completely missed in media coverage of his appointment, McConnell is the chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, the primary business association of NSA and CIA contractors. As INSA chairman, I've been told, McConnell is presiding over an initiative to enhance ties between the intelligence agencies and their contractors and domestic law enforcement agencies.

Greenwald comments: "McConnell's ties to these companies are so deep and numerous that it really rises to the level of conflict of interest for him to demand -- on national security grounds, no less -- that they be granted full immunity from liability for past illegal acts. He is, in essence, demanding immunity for vast numbers of his former partners, clients, associates and scores of business interests in which he had, if not still has, a substantial stake. This conflict is glaring and extreme, but Democrats said nothing about it when granting prospective immunity to this industry at his insistence. Thus far, they have also said nothing in the face of McConnell's demands that this immunity now be made retroactive as well."

Live Free Or Die

[Sloppy]

And the problem with a few of us getting killed (where the alternative is violating the law as well as sacrificing some very basic values about freedom and the role of government) is..?

Re:Old News

[lottameez]

Well, the real reason is that OBL went way over his satphone minutes. Too many text messages. He was real pissed at Cingular (and his son). The whole monitoring thing was just an elaborate way for him to get out of his bill.

Odds of Dying

[Khammurabi]

I'm very concerned about my civil liberties, but I'm even more concerned that the the next time I take the 'plane, the bus, the subway - or I'm just sitting at my desk, or on holiday with my family - I might get wiped out by some terrorist.

According to a nifty study done in 2003, your odds of dying (per year) due to a terrorist act (assuming you're not blowing yourself up) are 1 in 77,292. And that number was calculated by lumping roughly 30 other causes of death in along with it (that's a fair bit of data skewing). The actual odds are likely 3 times as remote as that (if not more) if the real data would be taken into account. (What's it been pre and post 2001, like under 500 each year before and after if you include school shootings and such?)

Your chances of dying en route to your destination as a passenger (1 in 6,050), and as a driver (1 in 6,498) should scare you and your family far more than any act of terrorism. Lifetime odds for heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 24) should be scaring the crap out of you far more than any planned act of violence. If we'd have shoved a third of the money spent on the war on terrorism on reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, we'd likely all have a much longer life.

By fearing an act of terrorism, you are enabling them to win. By focusing our attention on them, we are proving that it is a viable method of controlling the population of the United States. By panicking at the mere mention of a possible act of terrorism, we are begging our government to take away some of our liberties. And what right do we have to our liberties when we so readily ask our government to use any means necessary to fix the problem for us?

America should not respond to these threats with cowardice. Countering violence with more violence is not the solution, but the act of a country fearful of the terrorists committing these acts. The terrorists need to know that what they do will not change us, and will not change who we are. America should really just turn to them and say, "Go ahead and do your worst. We shall still be here at the end. We will NOT be intimidated by you. We shall prevail." A leader with any kind of backbone and dignity would not have reduced this country to the same level as our enemy. It has only emboldened the terrorists and confirmed that what they are doing (acts of violence) will achieve the results they seek.

So do not fear them. Any person who resorts to resolving an argument via violence is not one who should merit our respect as an equal.