AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs

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."

no fourth amendment protections here.

If a civilian has the docs, they can go after him, but there's no fourth amendment protections here. It'd take somebody in the administration classifying them to make them officially restricted.

Just cause AT&T doesn't want them out there doesn't mean squat.

Not quite...

If an employee knows that his company is committing an illegal act, then it is his or her prerogative to alert the public and the judicial system; this is what is known as the "whistleblower" status. Whether or not the documents involved are confidential has absolutely no bearing.

The only shady part is whether or not the Patriot Act or other rights-inhibiting measures can cover AT&T's ass, or the asses of the agencies involved. If the Patriot Act had not been passed, believe me, AT&T would be in a world of shit.

Re:no fourth amendment protections here.

It's OK now, dubya leaked^Wdeclassified them an hour later.

Solution: Philip Zimmermann's Zfone

You may recall that Philip Zimmermann was the subject of a criminal investigation over ten years ago over a little asymmetric key encryption program he wrote and made available online.

Recently, he has worked to give the world a very simple program that will encrypt voice communications for any SIP VoIP. It's called Zfone [philzimmermann.com] and this news about AT&T working with the NSA covertly is all the more reason you should use it.

I believe Slashdot covered [slashdot.org] Zfone's release a month ago.

As an American, I value my anonymity and ability to communicate without concern of eaves dropping very highly. I hope to see some VoIP services possibly use Zfone or some level of encryption as a default out of the box feature in the future. If you're concerned for your privacy, read up on Zfone and find out how easy it is to use!

Re:Solution: Philip Zimmermann's Zfone

It's good to see that Zimmerman believes strongly in making the source code [philzimmermann.com] available. When PGP was first released, Zimmerman disseminated the source as widely as possible, even having it printed and bound [amazon.com]. One of the reasons PGP went downhill after it was taken over by a large corporation was the decision to give customers a security product with no way of knowing it was secure.

Legal Action

I just wonder how long it will be before Mark Klein is repaid for his heroic and patriotic act with legal action from AT&T, a la Stephen Heller / Diebold.

Hold

The EFF declined to comment on the filing, while AT&T did not return a call seeking comment.

The call was placed in a queue while all available agents were attending to other customers.

Re:Hold

The call was placed in a queue while all available agents were attending to other customers.

This is known as the "far queue".

Re:Hold

This is known as the "far queue".

What, as in "far queue and b00bies?" =)

Re:Hold

Dude, that's hilarious. "far queue" indeed. I needed that.

Doesn't help fight terrorism

The problem is that stuff like this DOES NOT help fight terrorism, as the NSA would content. It just makes it even harder to find the important intelligence, because it's drowned out by all the noise.

-Eric

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

The problem is that stuff like this DOES NOT help fight terrorism, as the NSA would content. It just makes it even harder to find the important intelligence, because it's drowned out by all the noise.

First, this does help fight terrorism iff ALL traffic goes through it, and the terrorist uses it.

Now, with that said, what makes you think that this limited to ATT? Because people on /. have not seen it? because EFF has not found all the evidence?

Next what is making people think that Al Qaeda, who received CIA training (thanks to reagan) to survive, does not know that they will be monitored and is actively not on the wire?

The problem is that this system is targeted at terrorism, but with the patriot act, it allows all this power to actively be used against americans. Worse, we have now seen that the white house consists of cowards, liars, and traitors. There is no doubt that they are using this system for their personal use. If nothing else, do you remember the East Coast Democrat mayor who was being tracked? There is a LOT of circumstanstial evidence of the feds using all this against Americans. By itself, no big deal. By taken as a whole, and it should be apparent that we are not the land of the free, but we are recruiting the USSR but with capitalism thrown in.

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

First, this does help fight terrorism iff ALL traffic goes through it, and the terrorist uses it.

No, because he's well hidden by the terrabytes of crap. Better to use less crude forms of intelligence to specifically target people like him in the first pla

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

Oh great, now you've blow my cover.

[hopping on a boat with a suitcase full of cash and a dirty bomb]

SO LONG, SUCKERS!!

-Eric

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

The problem is that this system is targeted at terrorism, but with the patriot act, it allows all this power to actively be used against americans.

History teaches us that this should not be a surprise [wikipedia.org]. Give the federal government excessive police powers ("But we need to hunt *communists*!") and they *will* abuse it.

Hitler was ahead of his time. We already tried claiming that we needed expanded police powers to hunt "communists". Now we're claiming that we need them to hunt "terrorists". Hitler just took the Reichstag fire and demanded more powers because he needed to hunt "communist terrorists".

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

"what makes you think that this limited to ATT"

It isn't. An elite BellSouth tech with 30+ years experience told me about a similar secret monitoring room in downtown Atlanta he had worked on in the mid-to-late '90s. He implied that it was FBI-run, but that

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

Actually, all RBOCS have those. They are known (not well-known, but known) by those that work at the RBOCS. What you described was a federal or black room. That is where the feds do the taps. All of these are suppose to be LEGAL wiretaps. From what I have

Truth or Scare?

Yes and no.... In a perfect world, yes -- it would help fight terrorism; even if the terrorists are using encryption there is meta-data there to be mined.... when you cross-reference the data begin and end points you can still get the jist of what may be g

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

The problem is that stuff like this DOES NOT help fight terrorism, as the NSA would content.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that they're spying on their own people as a matter of course, eavesdropping on our communications, reading our mail.

Whether or not it helps fight terrorism is irrelevant. Even if it could prevent another September 11th, it would still be unacceptable.

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

Kind of OT, feel free to moderate as such:

This reminds me of an argument I had with someone a couple months ago regarding the importance of privacy vs. the importance of preventing terrorism. I argued that if we give up our privacy, sure, MAYBE they could gather enough intelligence and interpret it correctly to avoid another 9/11 - scale attack. (That's a BIG maybe. Personally I don't trust a government agency to tell me the sky is blue.) However, this doesn't protect American citizens.

That might not make sense until you take the position that once we give up those rights (which were so important to the Founding Fathers that they put them in the first few amendments to the constitution; I'm thinking first and fourth are most relevant) we are no longer American citizens. We're people who happen to live in the same country.

It's not worth giving up our national identity or constitutional rights/ideals for an indeterminate amount of increased security. The person I was arguing with said that if it saves just one life it's worth it; I said one life is not worth the subjugation of 300 million. It's not even close.

So then he trotted out the old "if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about" chestnut. I'm sorry, I don't want the US government to know who I talk to, who I associate with, what religon I observe, what newspapers I read, and what factors I consider when deciding when to take legal action. (Bonus points if you recognize what those five things have in common.) It's just not any of their business! Plus, it starts to have a chilling effect on what topics are "acceptable" to discuss and which ones make you an "enemy of the state". The temptation to abuse that information is just too great, and I don't trust an elected official to make that decision objectively. What one person considers treason (clearly illegal) another considers civil disobedience (legal so long as no other illegal acts are committed, protected by the Constitution.)

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

Wah! Everyone run and hide because there are some religious nuts in the world. They're so scary! Stop complaining about losing your rights to your own government because these guys live half way around the world and worry about your women marrying donkeys!

Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism

Uh-huh.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Some Saudi author found some bestiality porn on the intarweb and determined that because a woman was having sex with a dog/donkey, she must have already been married to the dog/donkey because that's the only way to have sex. Dammit! He's got us. With that kind of trailblazing fact-finding, there's just no way to hide the fact that all western women are married to dogs or donkeys!

If you really want to pop his cork, send him some two on one bestiality porn. Ask if she's married to both critters.

The Islamic world has basically zero chance of economic significance (outside of the sale of resources like oil) because they forbid loans with interest, because they marginalize half of their population out of the economy, and ultimately: because quranic law is essentially anti-commerce.

Sure, they'll have a substantial population for as long as the resources last (and food aid after that), and there will be some casualties here and there, when some of those upset with the imbalance (of their own making) head off to kill some infidels. However, to be completely realistic, India and China are much larger long-term threats to US hegemony than the whole of the Muslim world.

Regards,
Ross

So what?

AT&T is seeking the return of technical documents presented in a lawsuit that allegedly detail how the telecom giant helped the government set up a massive internet wiretap operation in its San Francisco facilities.

In papers filed late Monday, AT&T argued that confidential technical documents provided by an ex-AT&T technician to the Electronic Frontier Foundation shouldn't be used as evidence in the case and should be returned.

Big whoop. Copy the documents and hand them back to AT&T. What's the problem? Now that the genie is out of the secret room, so to speak, how does AT&T think this is going to help? They've just received a pretty severe black eye, though most of the public really doesn't know the details, despite the publicity. If I were AT&T, I'd maintain a low profile -- raising a fuss only makes more people get interested in what's in the documents.

Your world,delivered (to the NSA)

Somehow the new AT&T doesn't seem a whole lot different than the old AT&T. They are like the T1000 from T2 [wikipedia.org]. It gets chopped up but re-forms. I remember an old cartoon, a Bloom County [berkeleybreathed.com], I think, that showed the AT&T symbol and they screamed "Deat

Re:Your world,delivered (to the NSA)

Remember the old commercials?

Announcer: "privacy invasion, illegal spying, doing our part to bring the police state to America"

Cliff Robertson: "... and who's going to bring it to you? AT&T."

Land of the Free

And all of this in "The land of the Free". Makes you wonder.

Re:Land of the Free

Did anyone really believe in this stuff anyway ?
(I mean inside the US)

Re:Land of the Free

All americans I know have escaped to The Netherlands and they believe that the US should be free.

And here there still not in "The land of the Free" but atleast they can smoke a joint without getting thrown in jail.

Re:Land of the Free

"for the record, Americans have never been freer right now in its history."

I disagree, I think the tail end of the 90's where slightly more free. ;)

-Rick

This proves it, of course.

The submitter didn't point out that if AT&T is claiming the documents are trade secrets, that means they're accurate. Made-up documents wouldn't be trade secrets.

In other words, AT&T has just admitted that they are spying on you.

Re:This proves it, of course.

So there are indeed some protections on these documents in that case....not to mention copyright, of course.

But all that means is that they'll stay sealed and part of the court case...they won't go public, but they won't be ignored.

Re:This proves it, of course.

In other words, AT&T has just admitted that they are spying on you.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

Defending your privacy has nothing to do with admitting guilt. Do you think there could possibly be trade secrets in those documents somehow unrelated to the charges against AT&T?

A good example here might be a court trying to admit as evidence your complete credit card purchase history in an attempt to prove acts of terrorism. Even if there was *nothing* in there linking you to terrorism, you might seriously object to the disclosure of it, would you not? And I just love double standard concept of law... Should have two versions of the law, one where corporations are Guilty until proven innocent?

I'd love to see them nailed against the wall as much as the next guy, but let's not become hypocrits in the process, ok? AT&T has the right to contest public disclosure of internal documents as much as you do.

Re:This proves it, of course.

You don't get it, do you? They wouldn't object if the documents were fake. They would simply say, "those aren't real documents" and fight them.

The fact that they are claiming that the documents are private means they're correct.

Re:This proves it, of course.

And I just love double standard concept of law... Should have two versions of the law, one where corporations are Guilty until proven innocent?

YES! People have rights - they're people. Corporations have no entitlement to the same rights.

Re:This proves it, of course.

All of your points are valid but do nothing to excuse giving a non-living entity, with indefinate lifespan, and the power of many people, the same rights as a real citizen. While I don't think that most of your points should be allowed, those should be ta

Re:This proves it, of course.

And I just love double standard concept of law... Should have two versions of the law, one where corporations are Guilty until proven innocent?

Not double standard, but a higher standard. We must hold those that we put into a position of power to a higher s

Time for the Telco Mind Trick.

*waves hand* "These are not the documents you are looking for."

Echelon

Echelon. I'm surprised no one has mentioned so far.

More info, for those who has never heard of it before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [wikipedia.org]

Confidentiality

Ma Bell is now arguing the files are confidential, and shouldn't be used in a court case.

I feel for AT&T, I really do. I mean, how would I feel if someone decided to use all those confidential dead hookers in my personal, private basement as some sort of "evidence" in some "trial?" I'd be shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

If only at&t had TPM chips in their computers.

If only at&t had fully deployed an email and document server which used the Trusted Platform Module [slashdot.org] to help "protect" the confidentiality of their documents, then they wouldn't have this little problem of the public finding out they're being "protected" by the nsa

Re:If only at&t had TPM chips in their compute

And you know ... that's one of the best objections to Trusted Computing there is, and one of the most important reasons the big boys are pushing for it. That much less accountability (as if they really have any now, any bets AT&T gets off with a wrist-

National security to the rescue

I vaguely recall a case in which an inventor was denied the right to pursue a patent infringement case based upon the grounds of government security concerns. Unfortunately, I cannot recall the specific circumstances of the case, perhaps someone else can

Re:National security to the rescue

Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case [wired.com]

Wait a second...

You're telling me that the place they're doing this is SAN FRANCISCO? Are you kidding me?

They don't think that people in that city would storm the offices where this is going on (well, supposedly going on)?

That's exactly what would happen. Wouldn't even

Irresistible fallacious cheap shot

If ATT's not doing anything wrong, what have they got to hide?

Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am

In addition, if this surveillence operation is true, then he may be harming national security

No, the surveillence operation itself is harming national security. I am America, you are America. The government isn't supposed to be America, "We, the people" ar

Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am

By going out and releaseing sensitive documents, this looks more like a bitter man with an axe to grind. Or a "whistleblower". Yes, people have the right to keep their personal information secret. No, a corporation is not a person, and needs to be held ac

Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am

he could have argued it with AT&T first or the government.

Have you ever tried to argue something with AT&T? I wanted to keep the old-school rotary phones my grandmother rented from AT&T for 20 years at $3/month. The bastards made me mail them b

Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am

It's funny how people who cowardly value the illusion of safety over the reality of freedom will whore themselves out to Big Brother. "Take my freedoms!" they shout. "Take my rights! Take my liberties! Only make me feel a bit more secure, a bit more safe f

Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am

What trade secrets? Like how to illegally divert traffic to the NSA?

I know you meant that sarcastically, but stop and think about the deeper issue in what you've said...

We need to ask ourselves, "WHY has AT&T provided traffic to the NSA?"

Compani