Slashdot Mirror
NSA Whistleblowers Reveal Extent of Eavesdropping
ma11achy was one of several readers to write about claims made by two former military intercept operators who worked for the NSA that "Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home." Ars Technica has a brief report as well, and reader net_shaman adds a link to Glenn Greenwald's opinion piece on the eavesdropping at Salon.
...and reporting that I can't help but wonder has some political motivations, given the timing of its release.
That's not the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and not related to foreign intelligence collection programs in that were in place in the United States. That's the NSA working in a foreign military operations theater, and is vastly different. These intercepts were happening in realtime and were focused on an area of military operations.
When working in the dynamic environment of an operations theater, it's difficult to make distinctions about what traffic should be monitored and when. That is not to say that US Persons should continue to be collected on after their status is known, even under these circumstances.
Additionally, we have to keep the actions of the individual vs the actions of the agency in mind. What individual intercept operators at times did with their capabilities does not necessarily represent organizational support for such actions. Individual intercept operators have misbehaved in this way forever. Does that make it right? Does that mean the organization "condones" it? Of course not. Did UCLA Medical Center support individuals looking up the medical records of Britney Spears and other celebrities, just because they were technically able to do so, and worked under the guise of UCLA Medical Center? Of course not. But these employees also need continuing access to such resources to do their jobs.
Further, "'all employees of the US government' should expect that their telephone conversations could be monitored as part of an effort to safeguard security and 'information assurance.'" The Joint COMSEC Monitoring Activity, traditionally responsible for monitoring activity on government communication lines, is hampered by the increasing use of wireless-, (unofficial) internet-, and satellite-based communications devices for official business. The distinction about where and how such communication might occur can't easily be made, and thus often falls to NSA -- which should then make the appropriate determination as to the disposition of the communication and act accordingly. That can include conversations of an embarrassing or personal nature. These are all humans here, not robots. Yes, they are trained professionals. But they're still human, with all the foibles and flaws we all share.
A spokesman for General Hayden said, "At NSA, the law was followed assiduously. The notion that General Hayden sanctioned or tolerated illegalities of any sort is ridiculous on its face." Those of you who laugh at this comment and think you know everything about the illegality of NSA surveillance would be well served to educate yourselves a bit.
It's unfortunate that ABC misunderstands -- misrepresents? -- NSA operations with respect to a military theater during wartime as having anything to do with the so-called (and now defunct) "Terrorist Surveillance Program".
In fact, two separate "whistleblowers" came forward, separately. The allegations from both, independently, only dealt with endpoints in the Middle East. Once definitively identified as as US Person who is not military personnel, an employee or contractor of the US government, or covered by an active, individualized warrant, and the other end of the communication is also a US Person who doesn't meet any of these requirements, collection should cease.
But the failure to adhere to such longstanding law and policy does not mean that the organization at large condoned such behavior. And, lest we forget, "the intercepts helped identify possible terror planning in Iraq and saved American lives. 'IED's were disarmed before they exploded, that people who were intending to harm US forces were captured ahead of time,' Faulk said."
This is, again, how a few individuals
Isn't this why it's legal to sell police and cell phone scanners?
You'd better check those assumptions against your local, state, and federal laws before you post again.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Common sense would dictate that while it might be impossible to never listen in on a US person's phone calls, you would not continually do it.
So what you're saying is that it's impossible for US Persons to break COMSEC protocols during pillow talk?
One word: Honeytrap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(espionage)#Sex.2C_honeypots_and_recruitment
Yet the NSA did.
Good for them.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
They used to be, but now scanners sold in the US have the analog cellular freqs blocked, even though there is no more analog cell coverage anyway.
It's really lame, actually.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The Bush administration never lied about WMD or an al Qaeda connection in Iraq (please read my whole post and the two articles I link to before dismissing my comment. As a note: I don't think we ever should have invaded Iraq but we did and there's no changing that). I think it's pretty convenient for so many people to forget that all major intelligence agencies around the world (and all major, interested nations) said repeatedly that there were WMD in Iraq. No one seriously doubted this - not even the UN weapons inspectors. Here are a couple articles about the whole topic (one is from the Wall Street Journal, the other the LA Times):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story
As far as al qaeda connection goes, the WSJ article also mentions that:
"What of the related charge that it was still another 'lie' to suggest, as Mr. Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee's report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to 'meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.'"
okay then - your phones are private. your calls are being broadcast over phone lines. So why do warrants exist at all? Gee, maybe because you're wrong about this :)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Police scanners are legal.* But it has been illegal for years to sell (or presumably build) a radio which can intercept cell phone signals.
Companies that sell scanners the US even had to modify their firmware to make it harder to unlock forbidden frequency bands. Originally, they'd make a simple firmware change, or a jumper change inside, but people who buy scanners are kind of nerdy and they figured out how to open up the receive range. The gov't forced them to make that harder to accomplish.
With phones being digital now, and I guess encrypted, a radio that can receive cell phone signals isn't so interesting. But back in the day, with a pre-ban scanner, you could tune in to analog mobile calls.
* For now, eh?
What, according to the U.S. Constitution, constitutes a declaration of war? I would contend that the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" passes Constitutional muster as a declaration of war by Congress. If Congress did not mean it as a declaration of war than they were derelict in their duty, because the Constitution does not contain a provision for the use of military force (other than in defense of the territory of the U.S.) except for declaration of war. When the U.S. Congress authorizes the President to use military force, they are declaring war.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yeah, I never really got the "It's just a few bad apples" argument either, since the saying from Poor Richard's Almanac goes "One bad apple spoils the bunch."
I'd have to disagree with that.
There are cases of "a few bad apples" that don't spoil the whole bunch.
But, with those, you don't end up with situations that become front page scandals.
A few government/military individuals rarely have the authority or ability to create that kind of mess
Bare minimum, you are looking at lax oversight
In the middle is permissive environment
And the worst case scenario is illegal orders
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Hasn't anybody read the book "The Puzzle Palace"? This stuff has been going on for a very long time.
I can remember throwing random mentions of the phrases "nuclear bomb" or "atomic bomb" to add chaff to the system in the late 80's and early 90's when I was in Europe.
Anyone who doesn't know that all international phone calls are being monitored by any one of several governments automated systems hasn't been paying attention for the last 25+ years.
You said:
...Maybe I'm wrong, lets ask someone who knows a bit more on the subject then us shall we?
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington (who is a Grade A Badass) January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
------- While I agree that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the people from enemies including their own government (they just shook off one corrupt govt)...
The quote in your comment was not in George Washington's State of the Union Address that you referenced.
The reference at that time to being armed and disciplined was due to concerns with hostile Indians, particularly in Virginia.
The Address was as follows:
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:
I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now presents itself of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent accession of the important state of north Carolina to the Constitution of the United States (of which official information has been received), the rising credit and respectability of our country, the general and increasing good will toward the government of the Union, and the concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed are circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our national prosperity.
In resuming your consultations for the general good you can not but derive encouragement from the reflection that the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory to your constituents as the novelty and difficulty of the work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their expectations and to secure the blessings which a gracious Providence has placed within our reach will in the course of the present important session call for the cool and deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and wisdom.
Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is on e of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.
There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants of our southern and western frontiers from their depredations, but you will perceive from the information contained in the papers which I shall direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.
The interests of the United States require that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfill my duty in that respect in the manner which circumstances may render most conducive to the public good, and to this end that the compensation to be made to the persons who may be employed should, according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law, and a competent fund designated for defraying the expenses incident to the conduct of foreign affairs.
Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to
A free people ought not only to be armed and *disciplined* but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington (who is a Grade A Badass) January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Hmmmmm