The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence

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."

This Just In

This Just In: NSA Whistleblower's body found dead in burlap sack on side of road only hours after his identiy made public...

Re:This Just In

Police have ruled it a suicide. News at 11.

Re:This Just In

According to police reports the victim had a total of 14 bullet wounds in the chest and head.

"In all my years on the force, this is the worst suicide I've ever seen," said Office Malone.

Re:This Just In

Actually, THIS just in - AT&Ts request for return of evidence denied [wired.com].

Re:This Just In

From the article:

A federal judge Wednesday shot down telecom giant AT&T...

So does that mean AT&T was found dead on the side of the road?

Re:This Just In

I wish I could be sure that was funny. Not long before the Greek wiretapping scandal broke, Vodafone's network planning manager died suddenly in an apparent suicide [whycostas.com]. The world is full of coincidences, but that scandal was a Big Deal including eavesdropping on members of the Cabinet and even the Prime Minister.

Re:This Just In

Some supporters of the Bush Administration have actually seriously suggested that blowing the whistle on this out of concerns of illegality SHOULD result in serious prosecution and detention.

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.

Paranoid neo-con opinion notwithstanding...

Mark Klein is a great American hero and a patriot.

Expecting the neo-con mod-down in 3...2...1..

Re:Paranoid neo-con opinion notwithstanding...

Yep, that is what it is all about. People have long since forgot what being a true hero and patriot really meant. You don't have to grab a gun an form a milita to do your part. Well, you may if you wait long enough.

More people need to stand up and expose governments ( Not just the U.S. [slashdot.org]) for what they really are. Fight back people.

10 bucks on... (was:Paranoid neo-con opinion...)

Ten bucks on Mr. Klein soon to be sued by AT&T, and pursued by district attorney for thieft of AT&T company property (namely the said documents.)

Re-education

I guess we know who's next.

Update on lawsuit

From the summary: 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."

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?

The Government is apparently trying to get the evidence quashed independently, claiming state secrets priviledge. (The Wired article claims that this comes from UK Common Law, but UK common law comes from the Magna Carta and the Magna Carta made no such provision. Indeed, it stated clearly that nobody could be denied the right to justice, and that courts were forbidden from ruling on the basis of a single person's unsupported testimony, which is what a secrecy order without proof would be.)

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.

Court ruled yesterday

EFF Link [eff.org].

Documents remain sealed, but remain in evidence.

In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies,

The bush presidency is like a dam with a crack in it. At present, the crack is fairly small, but water is leaking out and the crack is widening. The question is, when will the dam finally burst? When will we see headlines talking about impeachment? When will people finally wake the fuck up and say enough is enough? Will there ever be an end to the war on terra? Will we ever see a terror level below yellow? Does anyone believe the bushit?

Is it truly a bad slashdot analogy or not?

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)

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 ...

The fine print: delegation is a wonderful thing.

I am also curious where in the Document you find such a power granted to the states

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):

[...]there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or Territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

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.

Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies,

"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."

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?

Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies,

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.

Start a minor riot behind Certain closed doors?

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?

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).

Re:Start a minor riot behind Certain closed doors?

If I had mod points, I'd find a way to give you all of them. But also let me rebut.

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.

you witless stooge

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.

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.

Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies,

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.

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.

Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies,

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

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

1. The "serious breach" that public knowlege of this program represents, and the "political damage", are two different things
   
2. Congressional democrats "don't mind", or are in some way beneficiaries of, the "political damage" here

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.

Pfff.

Nothing will come of this.

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.

Not to mention the great journalistic integrity of the mass media managed to simply say "Well no one should care because it is for catching terrorists"
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.

But does it run Linux?

Yes, it does [wired.com]:

Narus' product, the Semantic Traffic Analyzer, is a software application that runs on standard IBM or Dell servers using the Linux operating system.

Use certain words to clog the system

In every email message mention cocaine, opium, attack the instillation, anthrax, bombs, nuclear, atomic & etc.

wouldn't this slow down the efforts?

Re:Doesn't work anymore

Besides, would any serious terrorist speak in unencrypted, uncoded phrases oven an unprotected medium??

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.

Whistleblowing at AT&T

T&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower

Wild guess: was it a 2600 Hz whistle?

Was it....

A message in a Klein bottle ?

Stupid article

From what I get from the article:

Theres a box attached to the phone system that is connected to a room that he does not have access to, and he only knows of one person who does have acess to it. Therefore, there is obviously a top-secret NSA spy program illegally operating out of that room at the direct request of George Bush who wants to listen to you talking to your grandmother about her bunions.

There is absolutely no possibility that it's something like an AT&T monitoring system to make sure that its employees are not committing fraud, hackers are not abusing the network, etc... Obviously, if it were something like that, AT&T would want to let everyone know exactly how such a monitering program worked (so that they would know how to bypass it). What are the chances that a low paid, low level engineer, would ever sell such extremely useful information to bad guys?

Re:Stupid article

There is absolutely no possibility that it's something like an AT&T monitoring system to make sure that its employees are not committing fraud, hackers are not abusing the network, etc...

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".

Re:Stupid article

Then why is AT&T's defense "We were forced to do it by the Government" instead of "We didn't do it"?

Re:Stupid article

Then why is AT&T's defense "We were forced to do it by the Government" instead of "We didn't do it"?

Because they weren't legally required to do it. They were merely pressured to do it.

Re:Stupid article

And of course, if they were sued over such a program, the Bush administration would immediately file a brief saying no evidence about it could be made public for national security reasons.

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.