Slashdot Mirror


Snowden NSA Claims Partially Confirmed, Says Rep. Jerrold Nadler

bill_mcgonigle writes with this news from from CNET: "Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D NY) disclosed that NSA analysts eavesdrop on Americans' domestic telephone calls without court orders during a House Judiciary hearing. After clearing with FBI director Robert Mueller that the information was not classified, Nadler revealed that during a closed-door briefing to Congress, the Legislature was informed that the spying organization had implemented and uses this capability. This appears to confirm Edward Snowden's claim that he could, in his position at the NSA, 'wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president.' Declan McCullagh writes, 'Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.' The executive branch has defended its general warrants, claiming that 'the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without [constitutional] warrants,' while Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney at EFF claims such government activity 'epitomizes the problem of secret laws.'" Note that "listening in" versus "collecting metadata" is a distinction that defenders of government phone spying have been emphasizing. Tracking whom you called and when, goes the story, doesn't impinge on expectations of privacy. Speaking of the metadata collection, though, reader Bruce66423 writes "According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration took 'bulk metadata' from the phone companies under voluntary agreements for more than four years after 9/11 until a court agreed they could have it compulsorily." Related: First time accepted submitter fsagx writes that Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive has calculated the cost to store every phone call made in the U.S. over the course of a year: "It's surprisingly inexpensive. It puts the recent NSA stories (and reports from the Boston bombings about the FBI's ability to listen to past phone conversions) into perspective."

24 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Beware of the next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "So they HAVE been listening. That has got to stop, but we'll keep the metadata collection, because that's not so bad."

    1. Re:Beware of the next step by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Biden believes that collecting metadata is extremely disturbing and provides huge opportunities for abuse:

      Biden in 2006 schools Obama in 2013 over NSA spying program

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Beware of the next step by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a good thing his running mate, the guy at the top of the ticket is completely opposed to warrentless wiretapping. It's like they're agreed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Beware of the next step by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now now, don't confuse Senator Obama with President Obama. They're entirely different people...

      (I'm not sure to what extent I'm joking...)

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Beware of the next step by geogob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you sit in the chair, you'll never be the one you wanted to be while looking up to it. And it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

      There's a simple reason while politician change and change their speech once they get (re)elected. It's only then that they are faced with reality, whereas all the speeches before are totally disconnected from it. In the end, it's the same person, but facing different realities. I don't excuse them really for it... it rather have candidates saying the things how they are, but that won't get them elected.

  2. Actions to take by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions people can take to help change the situation.

    Have more ideas? Please post below.

    Links worthy of attention:

    http://anticorruptionact.org/

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

    http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections

    http://represent.us/

    http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/

    http://www.wolf-pac.com/

    https://www.unpac.org/

    http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

    Suggestion #1:

    (My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

    Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime, taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system gets fixed.

    Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage those you know to do the same.

    If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

    I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

    Suggestion #2:

    Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an
    eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

    Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

    Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for knowledgeable and cooperative people.

    Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed to be!

    Suggestion #3:

    A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations are very different.

    In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not "tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

    Suggestion #4:

    What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

    Suggestion #5:

    Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will always lead to the mess we have now. The only contribution towards politics I'v

    1. Re:Actions to take by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dont forget about the class action suit that rand paul is bringing against the NSA. might as well sign up for that as well

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Actions to take by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On one hand you have the public backlash if/when an attack succeeds due to inadequate intelligence gathering.

      I don't know about this. Take 9/11 for example -- did GWB get voted out? Did he have his power limited? Did Congress refuse to let him do whatever wars he wanted?

      No. He was re-elected. He expanded executive power. And even Democrats like Clinton were not reading the Intelligence Estimate calling into question GWB's push for Iraq and falling all over themselves to start a pointless war. All those private contractors profited handsomely. The revolving door between cabinet posts and VP of this or that is lubed up and spinning.

      So, perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps an attack results not in backlash, but in uplift for these DC fuckwads.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Actions to take by cffrost · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Actions to take by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On one hand you have the public backlash if/when an attack succeeds due to inadequate intelligence gathering.

      I'll take my chances. Statistically this century I've had a greater chance of drowning in my bathtub than being an American killed by a terrorist. And no, that's not evidence that the spying is working.

    5. Re:Actions to take by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Interesting

      you have the public backlash if/when an attack succeeds due to inadequate intelligence gathering

      "Intelligence gathering" is much too broad of a term. Call this blanket electronic eavesdropping. If the government could defend this program by citing cases where it foiled a terrorist plot they would. But they can't.

      Plain old-fashioned police work and people reporting things that are genuinely suspicious (that does not include your Muslim neighbor saying his prayers in his backyard) are the key, as amply demonstrated by history. Before 9/11 a flight instructor reported to the local FBI field office that it was suspicious that he had students who weren't interested in learning to take off and land. The problem was that FBI headquarters ignored the report. Listening to their own field agents could have averted 9/11, but blanket electronic eavesdropping wouldn't have. The bombing of LAX in 2000 was averted by an alert customs inspector, who didn't find it necessary to "disappear" the wannabee perpetrator. A plain old-fashioned arrest did just fine. The attempted Times Square bombing was averted by a couple of street vendors who reported a car with smoke coming out of it. Etc., etc., etc.

    6. Re:Actions to take by cnettel · · Score: 5, Funny

      On one hand you have the public backlash if/when an attack succeeds due to inadequate intelligence gathering.

      I'll take my chances. Statistically this century I've had a greater chance of drowning in my bathtub than being an American killed by a terrorist. And no, that's not evidence that the spying is working.

      It's evidence that bathroom surveillance is not what it should be (or at least not used properly).

    7. Re:Actions to take by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes.

      I've lived 51 years, most of them O.K., and a few very well.

      I'd be quite willing to die on my feet rather than live under tyrany on my knees. Somehow, either beats becoming infirm and dying of old age. On this issue, I thinks heads should roll. The responsible people (all, of them, Republican and Democrat alike), should be found out, tried for treason, and if found guilty, commensurately punished, to send a message to future politicians about who serves whom.

      So, without further ado, and to certainly attract the attention at the good folks at the Secret Service:

      What to do about a treasonous president

      1. 218 (50%+1) of the 435 representative members of congress vote to imeach.
      2. 67 (2/3) of the 100 Senators vote to convict.
      3. 1 President is removed from office and is now subject to criminal prosecution.
      4. 23 members of a grand jury indict him to stand trial for treason (Benghazi certainly qualifies: ordering troops to stand down when Americans are under attack?).
      5. 12 members of a jury convict and sentence him for treason.
      6. One disgraced, former president.

      Rinse, Lather, Repeat with all the other traitors, and send a message to "politicians".

      It's an easy process to remember: 218 67 1 23 12, almost like a phone number: (218)671-2312.

      I am not afraid, of criticism, of torture, or of death.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    8. Re:Actions to take by lightknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Was I drunk the day that everyone signed away their freedoms? Did someone forge my signature on various documents to give rise to these monstrosities? When did I exchange freedom for security, and call it a fair trade? What is with these weak spirited responses condoning the yoke that beckons to the grave?

      The home of the brave indeed. More like the home of the scared. The home of the frightened. The home of adult children threatened by the dark shadows cast by the bogie men they conjured up in the first place to protect them, bogie men that many of them never wanted. What happened to this country, that started off so strong, with such valiant leaders, only to end up like this...I fear it would take the resurrection of your forefathers to restore some valor to those frames. Yes, yes, we know you can fight wars, and win them...but it's been a while since you've fought one for the right reason. So here's one that you're scared of -> fighting one of your own creations, not on a battlefield filled with foreign enemies that you know nothing about, but on the court grounds of the land that you love so dear, over the laws that were setup to protect you if you but say the word 'No,' and yet, sadly, many of you cannot. You're scared, because you're not sure you can win this battle, when every other battle, until now, has been ducks in a barrel; you have to take a stand, if only on an issue, and there might be some repercussions for it. Better to choose the cowards way out, and remain silent, right? Then you can celebrate with everyone else after the battle has been won, without ever exposing yourselves...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  3. At this point by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is really sad but I simply assume anything that they deny in public, they are actually doing. they have no credibility at all about anything. Say what you will of bush, he opened the doors on this, but there is no way anyone should be able to support the over reaching, unconstitutional abuses of power that the current administration is doing.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:At this point by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bush bears his share of the blame; but he was still a hard-drinking, draft-dodging, daddy's boy when the US clandestine services were already in up to their eyeballs in seriously dodgy shit.

      The Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission(both reactions to things that had already been going on for some time, but had begun to seep out to the point where they couldn't be ignored) were ~1975. On the domestic side, the FBI was squelching 'radicals' more or less the moment Hoover oozed onto the scene. And, of course, almost as soon as WWII ended, we started up the Cold War secrecy-and-ethically-troubling-activities division in a serious way, and never really recovered.

      Bush certainly contributed his push in the wrong direction, when his turn came; but the rot goes a lot deeper.

    2. Re:At this point by Bartles · · Score: 5, Informative

      The person in charge of the Executive Branch can stop this with the stroke of a pen. It could have been stopped by not renewing the Patriot Act in 2011. It could have been stopped by following through on promises made in 2008. It could have been stopped by holding the president accountable in 2012, for not following through on promises made in 2008. The time for blaming Bush is over. If you voted for this guy it's time to start blaming yourself.

  4. Nothing new under the sun by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Informative

    BY THE WAY, they've been recording calls for a long time. Maybe not everyone's, but a lot of them. Right after 9/11, they admitted that in the aftermath they went into these recordings to find out vital information.

    This scary revelation was largely ignored at the time because of the go get 'em attitude in the nation as a whole, but I made a mental note of it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Nothing new under the sun by coId+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A frightening number of people seem to have a 'It's okay if it saves lives!' mentality. We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but supporters of this sort of nonsense never got the memo.

      --
      Check UIDs. I'm COLD FJORD(826450). User COID FJORD(2949869) has impersonated me. Don't confuse us if he trolls you.
  5. phone-call metadata by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Tracking whom you called and when, goes the story, doesn't impinge on expectations of privacy.

    This is true under current 4th amendment interpretations, but severely curtailed by statutes that are still in force.

    Much of the law on the subject was developed in the 1960s and 70s over the use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, which would record a list of all incoming and outgoing calls (the numbers and times, but not the call contents). The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that pen registers were not "searches" under the 4th amendment, because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in phone-call metadata (as opposed to recording the call itself via a wiretap, which was held in 1967 to require a warrant).

    However, Congress added statutory restrictions on the use of pen registers and similar devices in 1986; the current statute can be found here.

  6. Who needs conspiracy theorists? by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Funny

    With a government like this, it's tough to make a living as a conspiracy theorist anymore.

  7. Telcos by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Informative

    ""According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration took 'bulk metadata' from the phone companies under voluntary agreements for more than four years after 9/11 until a court agreed they could have it compulsorily.""

    For those who don't read TFA, the missing context is huge:
    When the New York Times revealed the warrantless surveillance of voice calls, in December 2005, the telephone companies got nervous. One of them, unnamed in the report, approached the NSA with a request. Rather than volunteer the data, at a price, the “provider preferred to be compelled to do so by a court order,” the report said. Other companies followed suit.

    And then they got immunity.

  8. General Keith Alexander lied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "When asked by Maine Senator Susan Collins if Edward Snowden's claim that he could he could tap into virtually any American's phone call or e-mails. True or false?" Alexander said, "False. I know of no way to do that. "

    The system is knowns as DCSNet, it lets them tap any phone in the country remotely:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCSNet

    NSA general is fucking liar.

  9. What is MetaData? by chill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So what exactly is metadata?

    Many years ago I was a telecommunications engineer for a large company and worked CALEA. For the uninitiated, that is law-enforcement wiretapping.

    My job was to make sure CALEA functioned properly on the new cellular network. We tested on an internal, micro-cell network that was isolated from the real world. The end result was to make sure targeted devices sent CDR (call data records, or metadata) and voice to the destination. This was all piped thru IPSec tunnels to the appropriate destination law-enforcement agency.

    In the event of a tunnel failure, CDRs were required to buffer but voice was not. Saving voice during an outage required too much storage space, but the text nature of CDRs meant they were small and largely compressible.

    Metadata consisted of EVERYTHING THAT WAS NOT VOICE.

    To be clear, it included the following:

    called number
    calling number
    time of call
    duration of call
    keys pressed during call
    cell tower registered to
    other cell towers in range
    gps coordinates
    signal strength
    imei (cell phone serial number)
    codec
    and a few other bits of technical information.

    Everything above "cell tower registered to" applies to traditional, POTS land line phones. This information seems to be what the disinformation campaign currently going on seems to revolve around. They never mention that there are over 327 MILLION cellular phones in the U.S., which is more than one per person. They never mention the bottom set of metadata.

    Capturing all key presses makes sure things like call transfers, three-way calls and the like get captured.

    It also grabs things like your voicemail PIN/password, which never seems to get explicitly mentioned.

    But the cellular set is more interesting. This data come across in registration and keep-alive packets every few seconds. This is how the network knows you're still active and where to route calls to.

    But by keeping all this metadata it allows whomever has it to plot of map of your phone's gross location and movements.

    By "gross", I mean the location triangulated from cell tower strength and not GPS coordinates. Towers are triangular in nature and use panel antennas. They know which panel you connect thru and can triangulate your location down to a few meters just by the strength of your signal on a couple different towers.

    GPS coordinates are "fine" location. For the most part the numbers sent across are either zeroed out or the last location your phone obtained a fix.

    GPS isn't turned on all the time because it sucks batteries down. If you own a phone you know how long it can take to get a fix, so this feature isn't normally used.

    HOWEVER, it can be turned on remotely and is a part of the E911 regulations pushed to help find incapacitated victims after 9/11.

    [There is a reason the baseband radio chip in your phone has closed, binary-blob firmware -- whether or not the OS itself is FOSS. We wouldn't want the masses to be able to disable remote activation, would we? Or let them start changing frequencies and power levels.]

    So, are we comfortable with the government knowing where we, thru our cell phones, are at every moment of the day? Because that is what metadata allows.

    Think of what can be learned by applying modern pattern analysis to that data set.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.