Terrorists Convicted With Help of NSA E-mail Intercepts 153
A Schneier blog post notes that three would-be bombers were recently convicted in the UK thanks in large part to e-mail communication that was intercepted by the US National Security Agency. This was the second time the men had faced criminal charges; in the first trial, the prosecution was unable to make part of their case because they didn't yet have the e-mail evidence. "Although British prosecutors were eager to use the e-mails in their second trial against the three plotters, British courts prohibit the use of evidence obtained through interception. So last January, a US court issued warrants directly to Yahoo to hand over the same correspondence." The BBC posted a number of e-mails used as evidence in the trial. The communication is coded, and some of it looks like what you might find in your spam folder, but the article also provides the prosecution's explanation of what they mean.
Re:OMFG !! You ARE NEXT !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal Methods Work (Score:5, Insightful)
This is being held up by some as proof that warrant less wiretapping is important and works. That, of course, ignores the fact that all of the surveillance done in this case happened legally through FISA court requests.
Weren't these the guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Weren't these guys that were trying to blow up the planes with explosives that professional chemists with a chemlab available consider a tricky thing to make?
Aside from the FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! value, perhaps the associated agencies shouldn't have tipped their hand over very incompetent "terrorists" and held out for a group that was an actual threat.
Re:So, the way I read this is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonderful! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It actually worked!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now all the need to do is make the most gigantic media spectacle they possibly can, including releasing evidence to the general public, so that we can all think to ourselves "Gee, I'm glad we gave up all those civil liberties and allowed the expansion of government power."
If terrorists are so common, how come this one is so special that they're actually releasing evidence? Oh, and if they *can* release evidence in cases like this, how come they seal the evidence in all those trials where the accused appears to have a good defense?
Hooray for governments knowing how to string the population along like trained rats.
Re:Nice story bro. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only dangerous if what you're encrypting is less damning than refusing to give up your encryption keys.
The penalty for refusing to surrender your encryption keys is almost certainly less than the penalty for attempted or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Legacy of W (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Weren't these the guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. And other things they lacked were passports (several of the convicted men), plane tickets and a bomb. That's to say they were capable of entering an airport but had no chance of even checking in luggage, let alone enetering the departure area or boarding a plane. Their claim was that they intended to create small explosions in airports as a political act or protest. That claim seems more inline with the evidence to me, but I didn't look into it in any detail. I expect that if they had not been Muslims they might have got charged with lesser offences, and probably only faced one trial, not two. We have a new justice system. If, after being held without charge for en extended period, then charged with offences whose details are not revealed to you, with testimony for the prosecution made anonymously, with evidence available to the prosecution that is witheld from the defence, with some sessions of the court held in secret.....if after all that a jury fails to convict you...well the government starts over and has another shot. This is an example of our high state of civilisation and fearless honesty, one of the reasons we are able to assume the moral high ground and subvert, sanction and attack other sovereign nations who pose no threat to us (unless disparaging words are considered a threat). It has nothing to do with oil, or with dividing potential opposition to other policies and accommodations made with other countries in the region. That would be a ridiculous thing to assert.
Reasonable Doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
EMAIL:
Hey good looking! Had a great time last night at your party! Hope to see you again soon!
PROSECUTOR:
This means they successfully completed advanced training at their facility and are planning more training later in the month at the facility in Afghanistan.
I have doubt that the prosecutor is just making this shit up and I believe my doubt to be reasonable.
Therefor, as far as I'm concerned this is evidence of nothing except a thank you for a good time at a party. If the prosecutor had "translation table" they obtained from another intercept then that's different but as it stands... They'd have to do better than "let me tell you what it really says"...
-[d]-
Re:So, the way I read this is ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not familiar with the US law that says the NSA can't spy on communications between Pakistan and the UK. Please cite the applicable law if you are going to declare the wiretaps illegal. Perhaps there is a UK law that applies. I tried typing 'or a Pakistani law' at the end of the last sentence but started laughing before hitting the 'r' key. The Pakistanis apparently had no trouble using the NSA.
The NSA charter is to examine enemy communications. This has nothing to do with domestic wiretapping and you should not be shocked by this story. Move along, nothing to see here.
Re:Law? (Score:1, Insightful)