Slashdot Log In
The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu May 18, 2006 12:11 PM
from the what-he-knew dept.
from the what-he-knew dept.
hdtv writes "Wired News has published the details of NSA wiretap and revealed former AT&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower, specifically covering the evidence he presented when he came forward." From the article: "In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case. For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."
Related Stories
[+]
U.S. Government Intervenes in EFF vs. AT&T 463 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is reporting that the US government has 'filed a motion on Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.' More from the article: " In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses ... A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker." You may recall a few weeks ago when the DOJ asked the judge to dismiss the case. They've now taken the next step required to quash this legal action.
[+]
Under the Hood of AT&T's Monitoring System 416 comments
pkbarbiedoll writes "The recent discovery of AT&T's monitoring program has raised more than a few eyebrows. While the class action suit filed by EFF is pending (as well as a seperate suit filed against the NSA filed by the ACLU), interested parties are taking the time to learn more about the scope of this massive invasion of privacy. Bewert examines the Narus architecture used by AT&T in their previously shadowed (and ongoing) collaboration with the NSA."
[+]
AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs 157 comments
UltimaGuy writes to mention a Wired article about some AT&T documents that have gone off the farm. An ex-employee provided some information to the EFF, to assist in their wiretapping case against the company. Ma Bell is now arguing the files are confidential, and shouldn't be used in a court case. From the article: "The documents, which the EFF filed under a temporary seal last Wednesday, purportedly detail how AT&T diverts internet traffic to the National Security Agency via a secret room in San Francisco and allege that such rooms exist in other AT&T switching centers."
[+]
EFF Sues AT&T Over NSA Wiretapping 746 comments
Omega1045 writes "Cory Doctorow over at BoingBoing is reporting that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has just filed a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the National Security Agency execute illegal warrant-less wiretaps against American citizens.
From the article: 'The lawsuits alleges that AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to the government the contents of its customers' communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers, including the lawsuit's class members.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This Just In (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This Just In (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This Just In (Score:5, Funny)
"In all my years on the force, this is the worst suicide I've ever seen," said Office Malone.
Parent
Re:This Just In (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This Just In (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:This Just In (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This Just In (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I monitor Little Green Footballs from time to time, and I thought to check the LGF spin on the matter, and one of the first things they did with the NSA phone database story was focus on the fact that it was a leak, not the concerns of the apparent illegality of the program.
Parent
Paranoid neo-con opinion notwithstanding... (Score:4, Insightful)
Expecting the neo-con mod-down in 3...2...1..
Re:Paranoid neo-con opinion notwithstanding... (Score:5, Insightful)
More people need to stand up and expose governments ( Not just the U.S. [slashdot.org]) for what they really are. Fight back people.
Parent
10 bucks on... (was:Paranoid neo-con opinion...) (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Update on lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Forbes has an article [forbes.com] on how the EFF has won the first round by getting the judge to agree that the documents should be released. Of course, AT&T will get a chance to scrub them clean of "trade secrets", a loophole they will no doubt abuse. However, at least the judge is showing a willingness to get down into the nitty-gritty.
State secret? (Score:5, Informative)
In the same way that a trade secret that becomes public ceases to be protectable as a trade secret, I would have though that this would cease to merit any protections as it is self-evidently no longer secret, whatever the state may say.
So, on the basis that state secrets does NOT appear to be a valid piece of Common Law, and that there is no secret left to protect, I can see no justification for quashing this evidence. Furthermore, as the documents HAVE been published openly, AT&T have lost all rights to their claim of trade secrets, and so I can see no obvious justification of the evidence even being sealed. We already know what the bulk of it says, as it's online!
The argument over who is right and who is wrong is, in this case, largely academic. The tapping has already been done, the publication has already been done. All the damage either side could possibly suffer is all past-tense. What is present-tense is what arguments either side present to justify their actions, and what evidence they are permitted to present in support of their claims.
Parent
Court ruled yesterday (Score:5, Interesting)
Documents remain sealed, but remain in evidence.
Pfff. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the evidence surfaced, there was the usual fracas about rights and privacy and yadda yadda, and then nothing got done for a few days. Then, the contents of this so-called secret room became public knowledge (Those commercially available network monitoring devices that were mentioned in a previous slashdot article.)
Those few days were more than enough to completely change the contents of that room. I'm not saying that that is what happened, I'm just saying that there is no way for us to know if the contents of the supposed secret room stayed the same. What would you do if you were the NSA and you were monitoring a goodly percentage of internet traffic and got found out? You'd try your damndest to hide it, because you're the NSA and that's what you do.
Plus, if any of this gets successfully filed under 'Homeland Security' you're never going to get a judge to do anything but blow smoke.
Re:Pfff. (Score:4, Insightful)
The daily show had a nice montage of the so called journalists not bothering to uncover a real story.
I dont get journalism, their is this prestige of it that people that go into journalism for ala Woodward and Bernstein. But they end up covering "so and so turned 100 today and she has this to say" and "Your house just burned down, your family was murdered, tell us how you feel"
Then this oppurtunity comes along and they do nothing.
When are people gonna start making journalist jokes similar to lawyer jokes. Both professions do have "good people" in it, but many many of them are just hacks and should not be looked up to.
Parent
But does it run Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Use certain words to clog the system (Score:3, Funny)
wouldn't this slow down the efforts?
Re:Doesn't work anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, exactly right, which is why it's bullshit that this is about terrorism. This is about spying on Americans. They want to know who is leaking things like Abu Ghraib photos, or info about the torture camps in Eastern Europe.
Parent
Whistleblowing at AT&T (Score:5, Funny)
Where does due process of law fit in (Score:5, Insightful)
Like a lot of Bush supporters, she cites the leaks of information as reasons to not take this to court, but I say just prosecute people who leak information that needs to be confidential and that the public really doesn't need to know about. However, national security is never grounds to hide from judicial review attacks on the Constitution. People who bring evidence of criminal or unconstitutional actions need to be protected by the courts.
Something has to be done to protect these people. If I were governor, I would give him a state police protection detail and make it be known that any federal agent who tries to arrest him will be charged with felony kidnapping in a state court. The states need to stand up and protect their citizens. My state, VA, has an obligation to me to protect me from unconstitutional federal abuse because if the feds act outside of the enumerated powers, it's state jurisdiction and any federal coercion in that respect is criminal conduct. Federal agents who abuse, injur or kill people, especially outside of the Constitution's limits on their jurisdictions are criminals, not law enforcement agents and ought to be prosecuted by the the states accordingly.
Mark Klein is a true patroit, a real American (Score:4, Insightful)
How-to (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He's not a whistleblower! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!
Parent
Re:He's not a whistleblower! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm with you on name-calling (it's fun but it doesn't exactly promote dialog), but please tell me how your use of hard core left leaner is not name-calling? And WTF is a hard core leaner, anyway? Don't moderates lean one way or the other, while the hard core guys are all the way out?
Also, grandparent supported his argument with a relevant example (follow the link), so it's not the case that he's got "no other option." Unlike... your response?
Parent
With Popular Soveriegnty... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that there is a difference is a relic of the idea of government by a king whose authority came from some combination of divine grant, parentage, etc., and had nothing to do with the will of the people.
Parent
Re:With Popular Soveriegnty... (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea that there is a difference is a relic of the idea of government by a king whose authority came from some combination of divine grant, parentage, etc., and had nothing to do with the will of the people.
Nonsense. You're forgetting that part of the people's will is that their government act to do things dealing with security, especially needed against
Re:With Popular Soveriegnty... (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone leaking, say, intelligence agents' names in North Korea would not be reporting illegal activity to the public and so would not be a whistle blower. This guy IS reporting illegal behaviour, so he is a whistle blower.
If the US government feels it needs to spy on its citizens then it should publicly repeal the laws and modify the mandates prohibiting this so the NSA activity would no longer be illegal. If the public doesn't object then they're fully justified.
Parent
Re:He's not a whistleblower! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Only if they mark: [X] Death wish on form H57J (Score:5, Insightful)
Whistleblowers go to the authorities (police, management, congress, etc).
Leakers go to the media.
Uh right. So, if you're a cop and you discover that the police chief and a bunch of your fellow officers are in cahoots with drug smugglers, you just go tell...who?
If you find out damning information about people who have the ability to have you killed (even if you don't think they'd do it) you have three basic choices:
Your distinction isn't between "wistleblower" and "leaker" it's between "dead sap" and "live whistleblower."
--MarkusQ
P.S. In any case, even if you do get it out in time that they don't gain anything by shutting you up, you can expect to get fired so they can dismiss you as a "disgruntled former employee," and, if you've really got the dirt on them, you may also get your very own swiftboating.
Parent
Re:He's not a whistleblower! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. The 'authorities' were part of the problem, Deep Throat went to the highest authority -- the people (via the media).
Not that DT was completely altruistic in his motives, but when the corruption is at the highest level of government authority, the only power who has authority of them is the people.
Just to toss out an ad hominem / straw man: Or do you believe that the people have no authority over government? And that the only body the government answers to is itself? With the recent destruction of the balance of power and checks & balances, to tell you the truth, it's becoming that way. IMO.
Parent
Re:He's not a whistleblower! (Score:4, Insightful)
So yes, deep throat was a whistleblower, as is Mark Klein.
Parent
Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies, (Score:3, Funny)
don't be silly, impeachments are about sex, not abuses of power. Noone is giving the pres a blowjob in the oval office, ergo, no impeachment.
Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies, (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president).
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (l
Is it truly a bad slashdot analogy or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course
Now where did i leave that sarcasm key
Parent
The fine print: delegation is a wonderful thing. (Score:5, Informative)
In the very fine print. Article I, section five [cornell.edu]: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings".
Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules [gpo.gov] of the House of Representatives (omitting crossreferences, emphasis added):
I don't know where the GP post got two states from; as far as I can see, it only takes one state legislature filing charges to start a bill of impeachment. Not that such means the House has to pass the bill if the charges show up; and the Senate doesn't get (legally) involved unless the House passes the bill. But charges sent by a state legislature are enough to start the process. Of course, a lot of bills of impeachment have been introduced in our history; most have been killed quickly, one was aborted by a resignation, and two went to trial in the Senate. It's not until either of the latter looks likely that things get interesting.
Parent
Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies, (Score:5, Insightful)
You pretend to be non-partisan, but this is the current partisan Republican party line. "Democrats do horrible things too, so don't complain when we do horrible things. Democrats in Congress voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, so stop blaming us."
This is missing the entire point. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responsible for the current evisceration of the liberties some of us still demand. Just like those Democrats who blame the Republicans, you are unable to see past your my-team your-team warfare to realize that the Republicans in power, just like the Democrats in power, are responsible for this.
When will you realize that your sacred Republican leaders of this vicious circus don't deserve defense just because the Democrats have helped them gain nigh-totalitarian control?
Parent
Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies, (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11. Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject? Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing when it's absurdly, factlessly spun in the media, but people like Pelosi know better than to directly attack on this subject - because she's in the same loop and has been for years.
The text above presumes that the congressional oversight committee for these programs has the power to actually do anything. This presumption is incorrect.
The small committee briefed on these NSA programs is prohibited from discussing the programs anywhere outside the briefings. So what is a committee member to do if they have concerns? Ask someone outside if, hypothetically, some hypothetical NSA program could be improper? No way - that would put you in jail. Even after the programs are semi-public, these committee members are still prohibited from discussing the programs. Pelosi herself, in an NPR interview a few weeks back, expressed that she had wanted to speak out on the warrantless wiretap program from the very beginning, but was powerless to get external verification of her concerns, because doing so would reveal that the program existed.
Could the committee do something internally, by itself? Perhaps, were it so moved. But since the committee is heavily Republican, the likelihood of that happening is slim (though growing somewhat wider in a time where Republicans seem to want to portray themselves as standing independent of the president, at least until after Nov 2006. But I digress).
That's why you don't see anyone from the "oversight" committee saying anything. Because the oversight committee is just for show, actually having no real power of oversight. Real oversight would allow for accountability, and no one can be held accountable for programs that no one is allowed to talk to anyone about.
Thank god for whistleblowers.
Parent
Start a minor riot behind Certain closed doors? (Score:4, Informative)
If sufficiently concerned over the issue, raise the issue on the floor of the house in question, before the entire house in secret session. While there are potentially serious repercussions to such a move, up to censure or expulsion from that house (subject to the internal rules), that's the most that can happen. Congresscritters have a constitutional immunity from prosecution by any other body for anything they say there. (Article I, section 6: "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place" [cornell.edu].)
If done in the Senate, one need merely find an amenable party member willing to trustingly second a Rule 21 [senate.gov] motion to raise the issue with some deference to secrecy, which may help prevent expulsion. In the House of Representatives, secret sessions are governed by Rule XVII, clause 9 [gpo.gov], and it looks like you don't even need a second to close the House. Technically, I suppose a sufficiently pissed member need not even close their house to secret session before starting the debate... but that likely would make the consequences under internal rules much more serious.
Of course, while outright expulsion would be unlikely for a closed session debate (takes too many votes, and is too likely to make an instant political martyr), there's a real risk of losing the committee seat, along with any others held; it's also not exactly the sort of thing that engenders future interbranch co-operation, or comprehensive briefings to the oversight committee. The current White House would throw a howling excretory tantrum. However, I would hope that my elected officials would know when to start making a stink. This needed a stink a long time ago (or, less preferably, a change in the law before the laws got broken).
Parent
Re:Start a minor riot behind Certain closed doors? (Score:4, Insightful)
If sufficiently concerned over the issue,
Right there at the beginning. As I heard it described by Ms. Pelosi, the problem she had was in determining whether her concern was warranted. The best way for her to do so would be to discuss the situation with an uninterested third party, which for obvious reasons is not possible.
While you're correct about raising the issue before the whole House in secret session, that concept may ignore the politics of the game somewhat. Because the information was leaked to the public, and there was a public outcry, there are members of Congress from both sides of the aisle raising concerns. Had it been brought to the House in secret session, it would have been all too easy - outside of public view - for partisan politics to continue. I predict the Republicans would have stood together to make Ms. Pelosi (or anyone coming before that body) out to be supporting the terrorists by trying to inhibit the ability of our intelligence services to do their job protecting the American people from the threat of attack.
See? I've been hearing that crap so long I can spew it myself!
Anyway, without the public at least partially in the know, the Republican-controlled government (all three branches, remember?) would simply continue on with the smoke screen about terrorists. Terrorism is the new Communism in the new McCarthyism.
Parent
you witless stooge (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement can have no basis in fact without your personal presence on Senate or House intelligence committees. Having lied at every opportunity and avoided those venues where such lying would be criminal (FISA) why would this administration choose to reveal the truth to Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, et. al.
Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject?
Because the loyal opposition is so cowed by the Bloody Shirt of Terror that they cannot bring themselves to confront the administration on this or any other aspect of the War on Dust.
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news.
No one knows what it really does except the spooks who built it. As to the case for a serious breach, enumerate for me the lives lost in consequence of any of the numerous breaches in this notoriously leaky ship of state. Now form a ratio with the number of lives lost to the mindless, indeterminate and interminable wars the administration has declared on a) information, b) wingnut islamists making political hay on the street in the crescent out of our belligerence and c) the secular parties who are our natural allies in the region. Limit yourself to righteous and holy 'Merkin lives if you so desire.
In short, go soak your head.
Parent
Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies, (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether they were briefed on the "exact" programs or not is not clear; apparently, Pelosi was briefed on something related to the program that came to light months ago, and objected to it when she was briefed on it. OTOH, since the program that has recently come to light is not the same one that was revealed months ago, its not at all clear who was briefed on what, though in order to provide political cover, the administration has released lists purporting to account the number of times particular members received some briefing relating to the NSA surveillance programs.
But the number of briefings isn't the issue, even when you restrict it to whether Congress was informed. The completeness and accuracy of the briefings is the issue.
Parent
Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies, (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the runup to the Iraq War and essentially all other actions undertaken by congressional democrats in the last four years, I disagree with your assessment of the idea that Nancy Pelosi is an adversiary of George W. Bush.
the actual-in-the-know political opposition
I furthermore disagree with your claim that there exists an "actual in-the-know political opposition".
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing
I furthermore disagree with your dual implications here that
Personally I think top-ranking congressional democrats are just as much potential casualties of the "political damage" that this breach makes possible, as the White House is. The toadyism in Congress crosses party lines, and I think congressional democrats such as Ms. Pelosi need very badly to keep their base from finding out exactly how badly they have been sold out.
Parent
Easy answers (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's about to. We'll see in November. Although I'm personally not voting Democrat, I'm splitting my vote among various losers, which is closest to "none of the above". I'm damned sick of both parties (although the Repubs have more of my ire at present).
When will we see headlines talking about impeachment?
As I'm old enough to have voted for Nixon, I'd say as soon as the Democrats control both Senate and Congress.
When will people finally wake the fuck u
Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies, (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you actually believe that the government would be any less powe
Re:Stupid article (Score:5, Informative)
Not only did he not have access to it, but he also stated: "The telltale sign of an illicit government spy operation is the fact that only people with security clearance from the National Security Agency can enter this room."
The NSA doesn't monitor communications businesses for fraud, hacking, etc. That's not their job. Their job is signals/intelligence collection and analysis. A room in a datacenter that's off-limits to everybody but people with NSA security clearences is basically screaming "I'm a massive phone/data tap".
Parent
Re:Stupid article (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Stupid article (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they weren't legally required to do it. They were merely pressured to do it.
Parent
Re:Stupid article (Score:5, Insightful)
No, sorry... No one is bothering to say "this isn't true", they're saying "we can't let this come out because it will damage national security". To me, that's pretty much admitting the program exists and does what is alleged, probably more (which is why they're willing to fight so hard to keep the details secret).
This has been brewing since the initial wiretapping scandal. The reason the administration insisted so loudly that they didn't need to get FISA approval (even though it would have been easy) is because there's more going on here. They've got some sort of system set up that monitors all communications and data-mines the content for terrorist (and probably criminal) activity. They can't possibly get a warrant to examine every single phone call ever made, which is why they say they don't need a warrant.
However, I don't think they're doing it out of malice, or anything. Not yet, anyway. I think they probably are using it mostly for intelligence needs currently. But just as the Patriot Act is increasingly being used to try non-terrorist suspects, and the very terms "terrorist" and "weapons of mass destruction" are being re-defined in court, it won't be long until this data-mining is being used for everything the government wants to do.
If you're not worried about the system being used to look for terrorists, imagine it being used to look for tax fraud or illegal gun ownership. Then decide if you want this system in place.
Parent
Re:Stupid article (Score:4, Insightful)
So my point is that the system is going to be used for investigating things other than terrorism, and we as citizens should decide whether we want that to happen on its own merits, not because the spectre of "terrorism" has been raised.
Parent