Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Document

ifitzgerald writes "This morning, Wired News released the full text of the AT&T NSA wiretap documents that are currently under court seal. From the article: 'AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released. Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy. As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.'"

Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below...

I think our boys at Wired are in trouble now, no?

Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below...

Since I don't know how long this will be up at Wired, I have mirrored it on my site at http://jaduncan.net/mark-kleins-att-statement-in-t he-eff-case [jaduncan.net] The HTML and the PDF are both there, and all in one page since I don't have to care about ad views. And no, a nastygram wouldn't make me take it down.

Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below...

Would a set of cuffs and cell mate get you to take it down?

Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below...

Would a set of cuffs and cell mate get you to take it down?

Actually, no. There's such a thing as principles, you know. I don't believe that a case that revolves around possibly unconstituitional state actions should be secret, since that effectively negates democracy.

If you have an executive that can avoid releasing info on governmental programs to the legislature, and can hide or quash cases where the judiciary declare those programs illegal, what oversight is left? You might as well just elect a king.

So, no, it wouldn't.

Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below...

Good for you man... I see too often that people focus on avoidng punishment more than doing what is right or even establishing right and wrong for themselves rather than letting a talking head do it.

Standing your ground...

Although I applaud standing one's ground, you must understand that of those who don't there is a portion who aren't simply caving in - they are taking a calculated decision.

Do I...
A. Stand by ground, go to jail, and spend the next 4-8 years there pretty much powerless.
or
B. Let them win this one, and be free to fight another day that isn't 4-8 years into the future - like the next day.

Which option one chooses -should- be carefully considered.. I presume GP did :)
( not saying they would actually go to jail, let alone for 4-8 years )

Re:Standing your ground...

That is very true, you have to know when to fight your battles.

Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below...

And no, a nastygram wouldn't make me take it down.

Yes, but will a slashdotting?

You have to stand up to them.

Being "in trouble" is a good thing in these circumstances.

If you don't publicly challenge the actions of the people who are trying to oppress you, you will lose by default.

Freedom is not free. Our forefathers were willing to die for it. The least we can do is risk some jail time (don't forget to vote!).

In the words of Mark Twain

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

So the boys at Wired are only in trouble if enough people believe what Mr. Gonzales has to say.

One of the near truths we've been taught is the power of the government is defined and limited by the Constitution. Oh, it's a consistent theory of course, but only self-consistent. It's a convenient ficiton, not how things actually work.

The power of the government is defind and limited by what the people will go along with. The Constitution is just lists that out. Not even that really -- it's our understanding of what the Constitution says that empowers or limits government. Nonetheless, the Constitution is a powerful check on the government because as malleable a it is, it is nowhere near as vague as the concept of an "electroal mandate".

Which is why we've had such as bumper crop of semantic creativity out of Washington around the definitions of "unlawful combatant", "torture", "war" and "domestic surveillance". One way to change the law and the Constitution is alter the language out from under it.

These are not the sort of men whose wordplay is motivated by the sheer pleasure of it, and it's quality shows it. It's a brutal and ghastly affair, obsessed with the redistribution of power.

Re:In the words of Mark Twain

to quote hey!:

Which is why we've had such as bumper crop of semantic creativity out of Washington around the definitions of "unlawful combatant", "torture", "war" and "domestic surveillance". One way to change the law and the Constitution is alter the language out from under it.

FYI - The phrase you are looking for is "newspeak".

If you don't think this is Orwellian, just RTFA. Then think about what you could do with that hardware.

Open for litigation

It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T. I sincerely hope nothing wrong comes out of this to them. But knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"! :)

Re:Open for litigation

Small risk considering the government will will their stay with the States Secret Act. The original case will never go to trial and AT&T will be unable to launch a case against Wired because it can't show how the documents caused harm without identifying the harm, which in turn would violate the States Secret Act.

Re:Open for litigation

It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T... knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"!

And for that, I have incredible respect for their editors, allowing such actions to continue, indeed showing that they are willing to take a stand against the assault on press freedoms that have been a regular marching call of the current administration.

Not that I didn't have a lot of respect for Wired before... but if there is a preemtive legal fund, let me know where to contribute.

I know /. probably isn't the right place to say "Thank You" to Wired, but I'll do it here first, and then email them next.

Re:Open for litigation

Or AT&T could just shut down Wired's link to the 'net. Wired is an AT&T backbone customer.

Re:Open for litigation

Nah, they'll just complie a list of everyone who views/downloads it for the NSA.

EVERYTHING is "treason".

The word "treason" has been so abused by people trying to steal the Rights that our Forefathers died for that it is meaningless in today's political discussions.

At it's most pure form, "treason" means attempting to destroy the government.

So, going public with details on what may be an illegal operation by the government is in no way "treason". Except to those who would like to claim that any actions they don't approve of would "hurt" the government (translation: "them and their party") and "help" the "enemy".

Re:EVERYTHING is "treason".

At it's most pure form, "treason" means attempting to destroy the government.

Good... 'cause I'm only interested in taking out the Republican and Democratic parties...

;-)

Re:Treason is actually defined in the US Constitut

CRAMER v. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1 (1945) [justia.com]

Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

Having thus by definition made treason consist of something outward and visible and capable of direct proof, the framers turned to safeguarding procedures of trial and ordained that 'No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' This repeats in procedural terms the concept that thoughts and attitudes alone cannot make a treason. It need not trouble us that we find so dominant a purpose emphasized in two different ways. But does the procedural requirement add some limitation not already present in the definition of the crime, and if so, what?

While to prove giving of aid and comfort would require the prosecution to show actions and deeds, if the Constitution stopped there, such acts could be inferred from circumstantial evidence. This the framers thought would not do. 41 So they added what in effect is a command that the overt acts must be established by direct evidence, and the direct testimony must be that of two witnesses instead of one. In this sense the overt act procedural provision adds something, and something important, to the definition.

Interpret that as you will. I will point out, however, that constitution limitations on the scope of a treason charge did not prevent lilly-levered members of congress from defining certain other acts as sedition [cornell.edu].

Re:Open for litigation

What other precedents are their for this kind of thing, were a newspaper willfully defied what it knows are documents that are secret, and claimed to be needed to stay secret in context of a war?

Most famously, there are the Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org]. In 1971, the New York Times published excerpts of Department of Defense documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. Roughly, the documents showed that the government had lied about the Vietnam War. The US government obtained an injunction against the Times, on national security grounds. The Supreme Court later overturned the injunction, but the decision, as my not-a-lawyer brain understands it, did not make it clear when the press can get away with this sort of thing.

This is not perfectly analogous to the current situation, because it is AT&T's documents that are being leaked, not the government's.

Hopefully this will get solved in court

Since it's the court's job to decide what constitutes proprietary information, hopefully AT&T's claim will be shot down.

This might be unrealistic, however, since courts did seal the information in the first place... I don't really know how Wired can benefit from this in any way, except, of course, by gaining market share and possible users from the geek community.

Re:Hopefully this will get solved in court

I don't really know how Wired can benefit from this in any way, except, of course, by gaining market share and possible users from the geek community.

Mabye the moral value of doing the rigth thing. Don't forget that. It's more important than generating profit for one's company.

Re:Hopefully this will get solved in court

"When did commiting crimes become ok in the name of patriotism?"

You clearly learned nothing from the American Revolution. Had that revolution failed, every person who signed the Declaration of Independence would have been drawn and quartered as a traitor.

Ever wonder why your signature is referred to as your "John Hancock"? Take a look at a picture of the Declaration of Independence some day. You'll see that by far the largest, most prominent signature is that of John Hancock. This was not him being arrogant - this was him making sure they knew his name. This was an act of courage on his part.

You're replying under the assumption of "The ends never justify the means." Which in almost all cases is true.

The one case where it is NOT true is the attempt to fight for freedom and save our liberties from disappearing. That is what our Founding Fathers did. They were criminals until they successfully won the Revolution.

And so it is now, for people who stand up to our government and say "You cannot trample our rights and liberties. We will stop you." The government considers them criminals (and those who have swallowed the "party" line).

People who care about freedom consider them heroes.

I am in the latter group.

Thank you Wired....

I am now a subscriber to your magazine.

Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.

This administration deserves neither loyalty nor love.

Expecting the conservative mod down in 3..2..1

Re:Thank you Wired....

No true conservative would mod you down for your statement. Of course around here that is likely to be little comfort.

I'm glad that they released the full text of the "secret" documents. This kind of this should be open for public review in the first place.

All good and loyal citizens should be clamoring for a public review of the actions taken by the N.S.A., and this administration, against it's citizens.

You would not be "modded down" by a conservative.

Any real conservative would applaud you for your post. It's often thought of that the Republicans are "conservatives". That is incorrect, however. They are not truly conservative in any way.

Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers. They are sickened by any limits on the freedom of expression, especially when it comes to political correctness or legislation that prevents the release of documents as in this case. A true conservative would be happy that you were able to openly present your view on this matter, and they would support you in every way, even if they did disagree with you. A real conservative would likely even be disappointed that there's a moderation system here.

Many of those who pass themselves off as Republicans today are not conservatives at all, even if they claim that they are. At best, they're neo-conservatives, but even then that's a misleading title. What they have done is take the worst of liberalism, and added extreme feelings of nationalism and religion to it. It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society. That is indeed why the Republicans are popular with rednecks in the US, for instance. They are universally disliked by actual conservatives, however.

So please, don't confuse "Republicans" with "conservatives". They are two very distinct groups of people, with two very different attitues toward basic issues such as freedom of expression, individual liberty, and so forth. Every real conservative is completely mortified by the recent goings-on within the US, and their involvement in wars around the world.

Re:You would not be "modded down" by a conservativ

Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers.

And yet our founding father executed several people as spies - for publishing military information to our enemies. The situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be. (For example, by having Wired publish this we are having the least informed person make the disclosure decision. Remember, these programs have bi-partisan Congressional oversight - but only by the security committee. The Congressmen that are posturing are just using the fact that they are not on the committe for political gain. Don't be naive, look for the motivations of your representative.)

It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society.

Ah - no bias here! Honestly, the same could be said about any political party. Half of the people have an IQ less than 100. Very few have a high IQ (above 140 or so). Dumb people out vote you, get over it. (As a collorary to what I said above, your representative is primarily conserned with convincing those that do not check facts, but watch the news. Always check the facts! [BTW, as a republican you should be reading this site for an opposing viewpoint. I'm not sure what you should do as a Democrat - is the Drudge Report any good?])

And I find it laughable that someone (the grandparent) is worried about getting modded down by conservatives. Conservatives? Slashdot?

Watch, this comment will be modded down by liberals - virtually guaranteed!

Re:You would not be "modded down" by a conservativ

And I find it laughable that someone (the grandparent) is worried about getting modded down by conservatives. Conservatives? Slashdot?

You're kidding, right? Slashdot is pretty far right. Look at the discussion any time the question of trade unionism [slashdot.org] comes up. One can hardly call this a left-wing consensus. The number of Thatcherites and Ayn Rand fetishists here is amazing. You'd struggle to find someone on /. seriously favouring the nationalisation of all industry, mass organised labour and a really high (like say 90%) top rate of income tax. THAT would be left-wing.

If there's a political consensus on /., it's a very individualist one. We're hackers, solitary creatures uncomfortable with being interfered with by either governments or corporations. It's right-wing, but also anarchistic, what you might call libertarian.

Re:You would not be "modded down" by a conservativ

While I'm not a Libertarian, and I don't have much use for the Ayn Rand crowd, I don't find it' particularly helpful to view Libertarians as strictly right-wing.

Viewing political ideologies as left-right is too simplistic. I like the Nolan chart or other spectrum approaches [wikipedia.org] better.

Re:Thank you Wired....

Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.

I disagree, strongly.

To my mind, an American patriot is loyal to the ideals of freedom - freedom for all - as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. And surely the highest mark of a true patriot is to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

There is nothing "unconditional" in true independent thinking.

I consider myself a patriot. And I surely do love the ideals this country was (ostensibly ..) founded to ensure the reality of.

But what the country is today is FAR from ideal, and I am not refering to the government only. In fact - one could make a solid case (As V did in V for V) that this society has the government it deserves. And what does that say about us?

As for Wired news posting this info, I am sure others have thought this, and maybe some have said it, but it's worth saying again: DOWNLOAD AND ARCHIVE the Wired info! This way it can't be "disappeared" in a "server accident" ..

Re:Thank you Wired....

Is now a good time to point out that Wired News and Wired the deadtree magazine are really separate entities? I'm not sure how much Wired News will notice your support by magazine subscription *shrug*

This might seem amazing but...

Wired states in the article that this isn't illegal. The gag order is only on the EFF and AT&T. So Wired are fine in posting it. Also, since the document isn't the exact document under seal but an older version, it may not constitute the final evidence given by Klein. Wired is not doing anything legally brave here: they have made sure to cover their asses.

The article fails to mention what the consequences for the EFF are though... (assuming the EFF leaked it to Wired.)

Re:This might seem amazing but...

Wired is not doing anything legally brave here: they have made sure to cover their asses.

Oh, I think you're wrong there. While the gag order may have been applied to the EFF, that Wired published this may bring heat down on the magazine and the reporters. I think it is brave for Wired to come forward with this information knowing that ATT and the NSA probably don't want it published.

I don't think it's "men in black vans" risky, but legally risky. You know Wired lawyers signed off, first, right?

Re:This might seem amazing but...

Wired didn't violate a gag order, someone from the litigation did. So likely the court will interview the reporter who cited the anon source and ask him who gave him the docs. If he refuses to speak he'll be held in contempt and thrown in jail (until the case is over likely). If he does cough up a name, that person will be put on trial for violating what ever specific laws are applied in a gag order (contempt?).

-Rick

Re:This might seem amazing but...

Why bother interviewing the reporter to find out his anon source? just look up his call records for the last couple of weeks and they can find out for themselves.

Reporters are worried they are already subject to this kind of thing http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/19 22209 [slashdot.org]

Re:This might seem amazing but...

The court explicitly rejected AT&T's motion to include Klein in the gag order and declined AT&T's request to force the EFF to return the documents.

Have a feeling EFF wasn't the leak here but instead Klein himself.

Wired, you are our heroes!

Information wants to be free, and you let it! thanks!

AT&T fear they will suffer severe harm

I surely hope so! grmpfb.. enemy of mankind!

These documents should not be protected

Having looked through the documents that Wired provided, I didn't see anything that should qualify as a trade secret of AT&T. The documents do list a bunch of equipment that is located in AT&T's server rooms, including the splitter that lets 'Authorized persons' monitor the data flowing through the fiber optics cable- but it doesn't say how the equipment is connected to each other or what software programs the machines are running. This data is not enough for anyone to duplicate AT&T's network, not even in a small part. The only damage AT&T can expect to receive from the publication of these documents is even more of their customers convinced that they have been letting the NSA take all their information.

Well

I fully expect Daily Kos [dailykos.com] to be brimming over with phone switching and network engineering experts in a few hours.

Good job, Wired.

I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.

If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open, they shouldn't have let that information out. There is no such thing as blackmail, in my mind, and there is no fair trial if you're guilty and the information is out there that proves it.

The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.

Of course nothing will happen. Some fines? Some words about terrorism? Do people not see that the worst terrorists are those with the worst weapons?

Re:Good job, Wired.

I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial
The ACLU would disagree with you

If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open
Not all information is relevant to the commission of an alleged crime. Oops, sorry. In this case what you were doing was legal but you won't be able to do it anymore since the folks who actually were committing a crime have changed their tactics.

Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous
RTFM. Go back and read the Constitution again. Look at Article III, Section 3 [cornell.edu].

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

If someone had a program in place to identify and prosecute those who would injure American citizens, and someone else decided to render that program unusable, whom do you think would be more likely guilty of treason?

Re:Good job, Wired.

I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.

I disagree. You can say whatever you want, but be prepared to face the consequences. Many of the laws restricting speech serve a very necessary purpose. Here are some examples:

• Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. (The classic example.)
• Slandering a political opponent, loudly via the media outlets you own, and only hours before voting starts.
• Publishing libelous remarks a political opponent, loudly via the media outlets you own, and only hours before voting starts.
• False advertising
• Medical personnel lying about dangers, options.
• Blackmailing someone for something they have or have not done.

There are plenty of other legitimate reasons to limit free speech. I'm less convinced of the need for "trade secrets" and certainly it does not trump revealing political corruption and illegal actions by government officials (the most highly protected form of free speech). In this instance there is little to no justification and the executive branch has absolutely no authority to suppress this speech because of national security concerns.

The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.

I'd argue that what they are doing is illegal and unethical, but not necessarily immoral. But it is the letter of the law that needs to be upheld to insure that we continue to be a nation of law. I would also consider these people to be oathbreakers, violating their oaths to uphold the constitution, but then, so is pretty much every member of congress and every person in the armed forces. The constitution and bill of rights is just a speaking point these days, and is in no way enforced. The federal government is just what the founding fathers tried to prevent. The issue is what to do about it. In this day and age of mass media can an opponent win on the reform platform? I thinks so, but without a lot of money behind them and certainly not from within either mainstream political party.

Such a blatant attack on freedom.

Even having grown up in communist Poland during the 1960s and 1970s, I cannot say that I've seen such a blatant attack on freedom and liberty.

Re:Such a blatant attack on freedom.

Really? You mean political opponents and vocal critics being killed and imprisoned in eastern Europe during the cold war doesn't quite measure up to tapping a telephone line? I think you need to have your scales of justice recalibrated.

ANY attack on a people's freedoms are equal. Whether it be free speech, privacy, or life. These values should all be held equally; any attack on one should be defended as vehemently as an attack on any other.

I think it's you who needs their scales adjusted.

Reporter's phone records

Good to know Wired's weighing in like this. Too bad their reporter's phone records are going to be used to figure out his anonymous source.

Warning sarcasrm ahead.

Gee! I would sure love to be in litigation, and have partial information on the case in progress leaked out to the public, and then not even be able to defend myself from it since i am gagged by the judge. The people here who are saying that Wired is upholding free speech, wouldn't feel that way if it was their day in court. They are circumventing standard operating procedures.

Should we trust AT&T with our data?

Certainly NOT!

Any company given over 'private' data (whether it is mine or another citizen's) should be held accountable if they are breaking the law.

Or do we really want to live in a paranoid society run by a paternalistic Government?

The American Public does not care.

The only way that the American public would actually care about this case is if the NSA was sharing the data with the IRS. Then you might here a public outcry. All those ebay sells listed on your tax return?

The Documents Should not have been sealed

There is nothing propriatry or sensitive in the docs. All they are of a list of fibers that should have an optical splitter inserted. and where the new end should go. Working for a large telco, I have piles and piles of documents like these.

The Docs do not outine what traffic is on those circuits, where they go, or even where the tap goes.

The only thing they show is that there network was changed so that what ever is moving over the fibers is duplicated and sent somewhere else.

Isn't John Poindexter a convicted felon?

John Poindexter [wikipedia.org]

I was always astounded at the gall that these Republican scum had when the appointed him to head this powerful agency/initiative.

In anticipation of a takedown order...

You can get the files off bittorrent here: http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3487747 [thepiratebay.org]

Wow... If the EFF doesn't get 'em...

...OSHA will!

Check out the photos of the "secret doors". Now, I understand that networking can get a bit messy, but that doesn't justify keeping a needlessly unsafe work area. That place looks like a nightmare! And not even remotely handicap-accessible.

For shame, AT&T... Blatantly violating the US constitution we can overlook, but a dangerously messy work environment? Tsk tsk tsk.



Ah well... on the bright side, if they nailed Al Capone for tax evasion, perhaps we plebes will eventually see some form of justice done in this case.

Wired!

This is the most respect I've had for Wired since they ditched their 1990s rule of using twelve different fonts in fourteen different colors on every page.

But seriously, I wonder how long this will stay online. I'd encourage those interested to save a copy, and mirror the crap out of it.

The wheels of justice move slowly

Okay, so Wired has joined the group of people that have published the informants statements, and judges, being the considered thinkers they are, would not have barred only the EFF if the judge did not want the statements published. One point for the judge on that one. Neither did the judge declare the documents be returned or the informant 'gagged', two more points for the judge. At this point, it looks like a rout on the field of play, AT&T is in trouble. All the disinformation that they have been spreading is shaping up to be the proverbial excrement headed for the oscillating rotary device.

Everyone in the world but AT&T and NSA can see the train wreck coming. Time for some timely resignations about now, and please please please can we all drop the bottom out of AT&T stock just now too!

Where is Judge Judy when you need her? I can't wait to see what unimaginable harm this will do to those wanting to take away more and more of my 'rights' as a citizen of the Empire of the Dollar.

No, I'm not posting AC, the American system of laws and justice do have a good balance most of the time, and eventually, if you play with fire long enough, you get burned. I am given the right to discuss, even rant about how my government is serving me. As of today, I still have all of the rights. I would like to see those spying, criminals get the justice they actually deserve.... treason against the people of US.

The right to bear arms is to ensure that the government remains humble, among other things. Despite that fact that this would be a lopsided event, the framers of the constitution did not try to make it impossible for future citizens to remove the government from power. NOW, I'm not saying that we should, for the most part, I like the way the US government works. What I'm unhappy with is that there are entrenched in that government, people who would abuse the power granted to them for their own gain. People who would misuse those power to abuse the rights of citizens for their own gain.

We, the people.... demand to know who those people are, and what they are doing. When the government acts in the dark, hides from the light of oversight, it is time for change... Its a mid-term election year, and 2008 promises to be a special kind of election. So lets all dust off our thinking caps and start taking notes:

Who is making mistakes now?
Who is supporting DRM/*AA/stupid Internet laws?

And so on... then lets all vote accordingly when the time comes, even if it politically seems wrong. A good mix of all three parties, and a few token representatives from the fringe parties is "GOOD FOR AMERICANS" (TM) and thus good for America, America's allies, and the world in general in as much as it affects the world in general.

And, if you're not a US citizen, don't be afraid to share your notes. I'm sure you get different news than we a 'given' here in the US. Lets make it a wiki if we have to ....

What do you think? Am I off my rocker here?

Sharing numbers with NSA is legal

Bush opponents and privacy advocates have been screaming about how illegal it is (4th amendment violation), and crying over the invasion of privacy. The problem is, it's not illegal. the Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of such issues.

The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the numbers they dial:

[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.

But there is no need to stop at just phone numbers. There is a ton of information collected on you by others that the government can legally obtain and use under this ruling. Consumer data has become so valuable that companies known as data aggregators buy entire data banks from credit card companies, hotel chains, phone companies, etc., mix them with publicly available data from phone books or title companies and then sell access to their mega-database to marketing analysts seeking a comprehensive view of the American consumer.

Anyone with enough cash can find out what someone's mortgage payments are, what restaurants he frequents, what debts he owes and where he banks, whether he subscribes to American Rifleman or Martha Stewart Living, and whether he's more likely to visit Graceland or Greenland, among a thousand other features of his life. Acxiom, for example, the US's largest data aggregator, has 20 billion customer records covering 96 percent of U.S. households. That's a ton of data about you, me, everyone.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the government may obtain business and other records held by third parties without warrant or probable cause, because those records are no longer private . Law enforcement officials may subpoena records, or request that they be provided voluntarily, or may simply purchase data repositories on the market like any other player in the digital economy.

Got that? The NSA could buy records from Acxiom (and all the other aggregators) and mine the shiznit out of it for whatever they want and it's all perfectly legal. From these third parties, they could know an astonishing amount about any one of us. I mean a breathtaking amount. Add in programs like Carnivore and Echelon (and probably and hundred other still classified ones) and you can be sure if the government wants to know everything there is to know about you, they know it. And they got it all legally.

If you don't like that, I can understand - I'm not sure I do either and it would be healthy to have a debate over that topic. However, constantly insisting that laws were broken only shows that you've never put any thought or research into the position you've taken and exposes you for a fool that is probably best ignored.

Re:Sharing numbers with NSA is legal

However, constantly insisting that laws were broken only shows that you've never put any thought or research into the position you've taken and exposes you for a fool that is probably best ignored.

I think that's a little unfair to say that. There is widespread opinion in the legal community that what the NSA is doing is illegal. For example Kate Martin [acsblog.org] of the Center of National Security Studies [cnss.org]. Also don't forget Qwest turned down the government's request because their own internal lawyers thought it was illegal.

We won't know the "offical" legality of the program until SCOTUS makes some sort of decision on it. If that ever happens....

Cheers for the Fourth Estate

Just when I thought all popular media was as usless as a Newspeak talking head, they go and do this?!?

Thanks, I feel as if a little light just broke through the clouds.

AT&T's Special Treatment?

Does anyone else suspect that AT&T may be receiving special treatment for getting in bed with the fed? The anti-molopy police seem to have been looking the other way as AT&T snatched up BellSouth (the rest of Cingular with it) and SBC.

It's a couple of splitters, for gosh sake!

Nothing top secret or proprietary about that. The only details excerpted from previous public disclosures were some circuit numbers, a list of equipment and a schematic drawing of the coupling.

And as to the propriety of diclosing this "classified" connection...the NSA's evesdropping on US citizens' internet traffic. Often claimed and implied, but never proven. Here's the proof. It's about as "in the interest of national security" as Watergate and the breakin at Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist was.

When the government goes out of control, sometimes the citizens need to take back that control. You can be sure that if this was a Democratic administration, the Republicans would be crying bloody murder.

Looks like proper CALEA Lawful Intercept install

Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.

While I agree that CALEA is an overly broad statute, it does require network operators to be able to provide the capability for court-ordered lawful intercepts. The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could. But from that viewpoint, so could any phone company that controls the local loop for Internet or telephone calls.

Klein makes an incorrect intuitive leap when he says that since AT&T Narus system is spliced into their links to Verio, Genuity, UUNet, etc. that means they can read the entire internet. This is wrong, they can only read traffic that has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA. The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).

On the issue of NSA being involved in this, it is possible that this system wasn't implemented for CALEA, but instead to allow NSA to wiretap conversations that had been discovered to be heading out of the country, and then requested to be intercepted. For instance, if they had an IP address of some mail server in Iraq, they could tell (legally without a warrant) AT&T to give them logs and conversations from any AT&T customer, over any AT&T network link, specifically to that foreign IP address. Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.

Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees. Which would be a logical part of the protection of a CALEA lawful intercept operation from being tampered with by foreign agents, or non-authorized parties.

Re:Looks like proper CALEA Lawful Intercept instal

Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.

I suspect it was regulatory compliance and security budget that funded this installation, but it is a little "above and beyond."

The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could.

I agree, but this does look very suspicious and it is certainly worth investigating. We were commanded to be "eternally vigilant" against our own government. This should be investigated and NSA files and procedures reviewed to determine just what is occurring. I see no national security reason to keep this secret (aside from, possibly, the contents of some actual intercepted communications).

This is wrong, they can only read traffic that[sic] has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA.

I take it you've never heard of transit traffic?

The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).

Yup, at any given time, although I doubt AT&T has their connection constantly maxed out, so we don't know the real traffic rate percentage this can monitor. We also have no idea what the capacity of the storage they are using for forensic analysis of this data is, nor how long they are keeping it. Hopefully the average load, the regexps matched (at least in general), and the procedures in place will shed some light on this.

Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.

The courts have not yet ruled on this (and I suspect they will find the NSA in violation) and I think the "reasonable expectation of privacy" of the average citizen is pretty clear here.

Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees.

That seems more than a little far-fetched to me.

In my mind, I don't know what they were doing, but I think the circumstantial evidence is rather strong. The problem is, I don't trust that a proper investigation will be performed, given the current and obvious corruption of our government. I would like to compliment you, however, on at least providing some of the only rational discourse in this thread.

Grand Inquisitor Gonzales

Bush's Attorney General, Gonzales, wants to figure out how to twist any possible law covering journalism and national security into prosecuting journalists for publishing leaked info [yahoo.com]. Even though WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Iraq War Sr and Jr, were all fought well without jailing leak publishers.

Bush certainly has "a new kind of war" in the Terror War: our goverment is at war with our people.

Bush or who?

Everyone keeps talking about how that all these problems are the Bush administrations fault. Yet I see mentions only of the administration in people conclusions, instead of the story itself. There's a lot more people involved here than Bush's administration. It's really a cheap shot to spin everything on them. But as goes the trend, if the administration had acted sooner this comment wouldn't have been modded down.

No Splitter activation date

Pertaining to the leaked document, does anyone find it odd that even though the splitters where installed, there is no activation date for any of them? (Page 13)

This is the less-interesting article

This post links to the less interesting of two articles Wired posted on this article. Interested readers should read the actual leaked evidence, here: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70908-0.htm l [wired.com]

The shocking thing in this case is not that Wired would leak the evidence, it's what the evidence contains, and the fact that it was kept secret. As the wired article concludes:

"This is the infrastructure for an Orwellian police state. It must be shut down!"

I'm sure that liberal and conservative nerds alike can recognize that there ought not to be a splitter on the optic fibers carrying your internet communications, that is monitorable by the NSA without a warrant or oversight.

Proprietary? Trade secrets? Er, I don't think so

AT&T, you voided your right to keep your proprietary information locked up as trade secrets when you chose to engage in illegal activities with the government, conspiring to undermine our inalienable constitutional rights, namely the fourth and first amendments (and possibly the fifth in some cases if the "fishing" does turn up a crime). As bad as it is for pedophiles and terrorist and crack dealers to get away with what they're doing, I'd choose dealing with having those scumbags continue doing what they're doing than to lose my inalienable constitutional rights.

You got caught committing treason, and are now crying foul and are in essence trying to use the "trade secret" crap to get out of trouble and not lose customer confidence? Sorry, too late.

Big Hairy Cajones

That was a pretty ballsy move on Wired's part. I imagine their lawyers are eating their Wheaties today.

The document itself seems pretty harmless to me--but thumbing the face of the court that "sealed" it is a huge F-U to the court system.
The said thing is that the litigation fees will probably be passed down to the AT&T customers.

It's not a damn secret.

My wife walks past that building on the way to work every day. She has been calling it the "Spy Headquarters" ever since she first saw it. It just LOOKS guilty... It's almost hollywood in it's attempt to look like a secret NSA headquarters (completely "abandoned", but without the graphiti and homeless that a typical abandoned building in that area draws, and except for the mysterious lights that are only on at certian hours of the day and night only on the floors with the blinds drawn)...

Somewhere Orwell is laughing

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Yet another mirror

Public displays of outrage are important.

Here's another mirror [tincansandstring.net].

Facts vs. Opinion

It is an interesting read for sure. I don't however see clear proof that the NSA is listening in on our converstations. I see that there is monitoring but the articles don't say how the data is being used. It seems more like it is looking for patterns but it is way too soon to say for sure. If this is the case, I'm not sure how that is any different that the looking for patterns such astransactions for $10,000 or more (used to fight laundering, etc). A pattern is a pattern and this time it may just be a pattern in a new medium. It is also significant to note that this is nothing new. In the mid nineties Al Gore was involved in a meeting where the government tried to have listening devices built into every phone manufactured. Unfortunately as society "progresses", there is more and more personal information that is disseminated, stolen, viewed, etc but companies, governments, crooks, friends, etc. I work for an ISP and quite often we receive notices from some organization telling us that one of our customers is distributing illegal copies of something or using a name, photo, logo, etc illegally. Some one somewhere is monitoring their patterns. Some of our connections have restrictions on certain activites, e.g. web hosting and we can tell if their pattern confirms or suggests inappropriate usage. The author is clearly opiniated and sometimes makes judgement calls. One example is "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 fact that security clearances are requried is not proof of an illicit operation. The article presents a small but important part of a much larger discussion. I will withhold judgement until I have more information.

Wet your pants funny!

In the old days, you'd hire a window washer to drill a little hole in a window frame and insert a tiny microphone, with a camoflauged lead running to the building next door, where a front company would have a front room of cute typists and a back room of guys with earphones and tape recorders. And a back door to scram out thru if the KGB started pounding on the front door. Cheap, effective, and semi-deniable when found out.

NOW the "Get Smart" guys build a "secret room" right in the bleepin Ma Bell building! And said room is of course (a) On the building plans, in duplicatre. (b) Known to everybody, as they're not allowed to go in there. (c) Uses scads of bulky and hot, and easily-identifiable off-the-rack equipment.

Sheesh!

so what can I do to show my stand?

So what can an average citizen do to? Can we switch carriers? If enough customers dropped AT&T and moved to another carrier/provider, I think that will send the message.

Or this sniffing is done at 'backbone' level, no use of switching ISPs/carriers.

I live in SF Bay area. My ISP is RCN, my wireless provider is Cingular (part of AT&T, I think)

Thanks

NSA

And so it begins. As more information becomes available, more people are going to request disclosure.

Securtity measures HAHA

I got this e-mail from Verizon after I complained that my old username was not working. In the name of "SECURITY" they want me to have 8 character passwords and 8 character username. All for turning the phone records to NSA, now that is Funny. "Thank you for contacting Verizon Wireless through our website. I understand your inquiry and I will be happy to address your concerns regarding the My Account online feature's new and most recent updates to the website. For the protection of your online account information, we have recently made security enhancements to our website which will require you to use an 8-20 digit alpha-numeric Password, create a Username that can only be 9 digits or 6 to 20 characters in length, and establish a Security Question. I regret the inconvenience. During the updating/creating process, if the system is telling you that something is not in a valid format, this could refer to the Password or Security Question. You will have the option of selecting the radio button next to one of eight pre-determined questions or you will have the option to select the radio button to create your own Question. Please be sure that you are selecting the appropriate radio button. If you are creating your own Security Question, it must be between 6-80 characters and can contain underscore, period, dash (hyphen), @, apostrophe, question mark, and spaces, but no other special characters will be allowed. The question will be stored exactly as is entered. Your answer must be between 3-40 characters and can include letters, numbers, spaces (count as characters) and a period. No other Special characters will be permitted, and the answer will not be case sensitive. Although the answer is not case sensitive, the answer must be inputted exactly as it is created. For example, if your answer is "Peanut Butter and Jelly." than "peanut butter and jelly." would be correct, but "peanutbutter and jelly" is incorrect. When creating a login Password, it must be 8-20 alphanumeric characters (must contain at least one number and one letter) with no spaces or special characters. If you are still unable to access your online account after completing the procedures listed above, please respond to this email and include your current login Password and the login Password you would like to change to (that meets the login Password requirements), and the Username you would like to change to, in order to investigate this issue further. Be sure to also include the last four digits of the Social Security Number listed on the account for verification/authorization purposes. If you prefer, you can contact the E-Services and Support Department at 800-350-2830, and select option 1. Our hours are Monday through Friday, 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time. We appreciate your business. Thank you for using Verizon Wireless products and services. Sincerely, Jasmine Verizon Wireless E-Services and Support"

Genie is out of the bottle

AT&T May sue WIERED, the DoJ may be a little edgy, but the fact is, any other media outlet can now with immunity talk about this as much as they want, it is now in the public record, so technically, the EFF kinda got a quazi-win

NSA-AT&T scandal

One of the more significant points of the story is the fact that the AT&T employee has leaked that NSA are using hardware and software from NARUS [narus.com] to analyse data traffic (the very same equipment is used by Telecom Egypt and Saudi Telecom).

Which of course makes it possible for the creative crypto-designer to work around this particular device type, if necessary. But I would think that any reasonably encrypted channel is immune to this automatic filtering.

Here is a good blog entry on the technical aspects of the AT&T-NSA scandal [dailykos.com].

predictable responses

loony on the right: "Wired are nothing but traitors and hate America. Why do you hate America, you communists?"

loony on the left: "Wired are heroes, standing up against the Orwellian Bush Regime."

some moderate: "This is a pretty complex issue. On the one hand, the government appears to be breaking the rule of law; on the other, Wired appears to be breaking the law and releasing information the government says is vital to national security. Do two wrongs make a right? Is one wrong worse than the other? How can you tell?"

MORTAR_COMBAT!: "WTF?"

If mere suspicion of unlawful activity by the government is enough to release classified information, then is any information is sacred? What activity is "bad enough"?

Isn't there some kind of sealed federal court that can hear this case instead of wide broadcast? We progressive cannot demand that a tyrant follow the due course of law, and neglect to do so ourselves if it is available to us. If we wish to say that the court itself is corrupt, then I don't know, I guess we're just fucked.

So, what connects all the seekrit rooms?

This is all starting to look like a big load of paranoid crap to me:

1) Yeah, the NSA is tapping data from all the OC48s in the world and funneling them back to Fort Meade, using what? Short wave radios? Peer to peer radios secretly implanted in our buttocks?

2) ISPs install splitters all the time in feeds for debugging and SLA monitoring purposes. It's easy to do, and essentially undetectable by end users.

3) Klein's logic if you read TFDs is basically - I saw a guy who said he was from the NSA, then secret rooms appeared, therefore the NSA is monitoring all our phone calls.

4) The Bush administration has shown itself uttely imcompetent at conducting routine governmental activities, like Intelligence about WMDs and Hurricane Relief, so why would we think they would be even minimally proficient at Monitoring All The Phone Calls In The US?

5) There is a new domestic intelligence chief up for confirmation, and now is perfect time to orchestrate FUD campaigns that will scuttle his appointment.

Feh.

Interesting picture of the secret room

Notice the ladder right next to it where one can pull out a ceiling tile and shimmy over the wall. oh look.. a misplaced ceiling tile.. next to a ladder.. so much for security? http://ly.lygo.com/ly/wired/news/images/full/secre troom1_f.jpg [lygo.com]

Tempest in a teapot

The way I read it, wired is making a big fuss out of very little. This is info that the EFF already had: "As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein."
Wired made it public, but that's not going to change the case in any way. It's not like Wired dug up some new info that will help the EFF.
FWIW, you may find Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) [cornell.edu] informative.

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

If I'm being prosecuted for a nation-wide spying program, then I suppose I have to say "that's fine with me".

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

I was under the impression that court specifically ordered the EFF not to release the documents.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but Wired News != The EFF. Sure, it might be abusing the legal system but doesn't ATT (and other big corperations) do that all the time?

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?

Of course I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like losing, either, but that's how the game is played.

The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.

You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

dude, AT&T is not a person. If the case touched a handful of individuals or less, then I would agree with you.

I see you earned the TROLL tag. Congrats.

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

I hate to say it, but the Bush Administration and AT&T had it coming. You can't cry foul if someone else breaks the rules, when you claim that you are above the law because everything you do is a state secret or is in the "interest of national security".

This gets to the larger issue. As much as I am concerned about spying on Americans, and the mis-deeds of AT&T, I am much more concerned that the administration's actions in putting itself above the law sets a precedence for gross and blatant violation of the law by many. In short, what we have here is the begining of the breakdown of law and order.

That said, how do you fight those who are above the law when you are constrained to play by the rules? Consider that the administration stopped the Justice department investigation into the NSA [wired.com] by refusing to issue clearances to the Justice Department. Any ideas on how to deal with this when the legal system has been co-opted by those who are committing the mis-deeds? Does legality have any meaning in this case?

No solutions, only bitter complaining

Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia? Marching in the street, protesting the bombing. You probably saw them on TV and made fun of them. Probably called them "hippies," shouted some drunken inanity like: "The Sities are over!" Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City? Protesting the reduction of our civil liberties. Some of us "anti-Bush liberals" (we weren't "anti-Bush" then, as he wasn't around, but that is quibbling) have been members of the ACLU for a long, long time. Some of us "liberals" put money, not just angry verbiage and blustering internet bravado, into our resistance to increasing government power. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. This is true - but when Clinton was President, the Democratic Party did not have the monopoly on power the Republicans enjoy in Congress today. There were GOP leaders (Bob Barr chief among them) who defended civil liberties - and still do. Barr is persona non grata in the party now because of his principled non-partisan defense of civil liberties. Dismissing both parties as "monsters" is just as ridiculous, perhaps even moreso, than partisan loyalty. In your case, your thoughtless position not only offers no solution itself, your juvenile dismissal of "both parties" allows for no improvement, no room for rational discussion. I join you in the sentiment that both parties contain "professional politicians" - people who seek power or political office as a means in itself, rather than a means to better society and worked toward a progressive future. But so what? Judging by your example, the political parties are not the only ones with members who are incapable of seeing beyond their own petty self-interests and prejudices.

Re:Irresponsible "Journalism"

>At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?

Yes, we are a nation of laws. One of our first, and most important ones says:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

The executive branch isn't given the ability to stifle this right simply because some of the facts it exposes might be embarassing or actually illegal. If you really do think this is a nation of laws, you should be complaining about the White House breaking them long before Wired News.

>For those who would try and turn this around to point at the current administration, Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL.

And how exactly would you know that? Because the administration says so? For anyone who even pretends to respect freedom, that's not enough.

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?

Actually I think you have the question inverted. A closer fit to reality would be:

"Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you taken out of the normal public record (which allows the public to track how the government administers justice), before the jury has made their decision?"

And AT&T's apparent answer was "Hot damn! YES!!"

Re:Irresponsible "Journalism"

According to this administration, "if you've done nothing illegal, you've got nothing to worry about having others find out about it". So if the NSA actions are "perfectly LEGAL", why are they worried about people finding out about it?

Re:Irresponsible "Journalism"

First of all, your a idiot if you think Judges are highly educated and trained. It doesnt take much to become a judge, many are in fact political appointees and have no law experience at all. Its actually kinda sad to be honest.

Now next part is this whole "Nation of Laws" BS. Where is the law? Our own government has broken just about every right guaranteed to us by the constitution under the fictional guise of security when evidence proves we are no safer than we where on 9/11 and a lot of the law breaking is being used to keep government whistleblowers quiet and to get rid of "threats" to the current government in charge. Their own people leaked the identity of a CIA agent to get her either kicked out of the CIA or killed and they are getting away with it, jus because her husband flat out said Iraq doesnt have WMD which SURPRISE IT DIDNT. We have no laws if our own elected officials dont follow them. You have no rights atm and people FAIL to realize this because they listen to the bullshit spread by the media.

This ISNT legal, Im sorry if you think 3 lawyers and a lawschool kid (all who where consulted about this) constitutes legal right but it doesnt. There has been nothing in this war that WAS legal. And your a idiot and a traitor to this country and its founding principles and freedoms if you think it was.

Welcome to 1984.

But the administration which made those laws. . .

But the laws being used by the NSA, etc., were created by an illegitimate administration. --One which forged two elections through, (among several different means), the use of Diebold's voting machines, which have been demonstrated numerous times to be faulty with a conservative bias.

It seems to me that Wired has decided not to respect fraudulent law makers, which is what the voice of a conscientious people should be doing. I certainly hope that the people's voice when it contests fascism avoids being crushed into silence. I applaud those who have the guts and nobility to push back against criminals where others are too cowardly or ignorant to stand up.

-FL

Wired did the right thing ... for a democracy

If you'd read to the end of TFA, you'd have seen this paragraph-

The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the EFF, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. The court explicitly rejected AT&T's motion to include Klein in the gag order and declined AT&T's request to force the EFF to return the documents.

Wired didn't abuse the system, they played right within the rules. This is exactly the sort of case that makes democracies stronger - the government is accused of widespread abuse of power, and tries hard to avoid having any light shed on its case. The press reveals the evidence against the government, and the public gains insight into what their elected leaders are doing. Without an unfettered press, we'd have no clue what they were up to.

Bravo, Wired.

Re:Irresponsible "Journalism"

At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?

This is almost completely untrue. We are not, and never have been, a nation of laws. Laws aren't at the top of the hierarchy, and hopefully never will be. We are a nation of principles, and all our laws are subject to adherence to those principles.

When someone breaks a law in pursuance of those principles, they do our country a service. If they have the courage of their convictions, they may even be able to get the law overturned. If, on the other hand, it is determined that those principles do not support their action, the law will be upheld, and they will be held accountable for violating it.

Wired, from their own words, seems to believe that they're not even breaking the law (violating the court order) in this case. But if they are, they are clearly doing so in an attempt to bring matters to public attention that many of us feel require more public scrutiny.

So, at what point will the administration remember that we are a nation of principles? They seem to have convienently forgotten the ones they don't like.

Re:Think about this when you read it

Good job reading the cover page. Next time, try reading the full article, which continues on with:

Another ... document ... lists the circuit IDs of key Peering Links which were "cut-in" in February 2003, including ConXion, Verio, XO, Genuity, Qwest, PAIX, Allegiance, AboveNet, Global Crossing, C&W, UUNET, Level 3, Sprint, Telia, PSINet and Mae West.

MAE-West is the main interconnect for backbone providers on the west coast. Another key interconnect on the east coast (MAE-East [wikipedia.org]). Klein's document provides solid information that this "secret room" setup was being duplicated at many other AT&T locations, and AT&T is (of course) a member of the MAE-East exchange as well.

So yeah, they are tapping into pretty much all of the US-based internet.

Now, you were saying something about mindlessness?

Re:Think about this when you read it

Actually, AT&T owns a big portion of the backbone lines. There's a good chance that, pretty much no matter where your packets are going, they hit an AT&T controlled line at some point.

Re:Think about this when you read it

Don't you realize that ATT is a backbone, and that a whole lot of the world's internet traffic passes over ATT fiber? They're capable of sniffing a hell of a lot more than their own WorldNet service...

Re:Think about this when you read it

http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/casa/martin/atlas/att_ba ckbone_large.gif [ucl.ac.uk]

Obviously they can't see everything on the internet, but as a backbone provider, they pass traffic originating from many other ISPs. The quote you highlighted taken in this context is much more chilling than it is humorous.

Re:Think about this when you read it

I don't quite understand your comment. Are you being sarcastic saying AT&T is fucked? Or are you saying AT&T should be embarassed that they ever hired guy like this?

If you comment is based on the fact that AT&T couldn't possibly tap into the entire internet then maybe you should have read on.

"Another 'Cut-In and Test Procedure' document dated January 24, 2003, provides diagrams of how AT&T Core Network circuits were to be run through the "splitter" cabinet...which were "cut-in" in February 2003, including ConXion, Verio, XO, Genuity, Qwest, PAIX, Allegiance, AboveNet, Global Crossing, C&W, UUNET, Level 3, Sprint, Telia, PSINet and Mae West.

And then, and most importantly...

By the way, Mae West is one of two key internet nodal points in the United States (the other, Mae East, is in Vienna, Virginia). It's not just WorldNet customers who are being spied on -- it's the entire internet.

Now I will admit that I do not know much about "nodal points" so I can't comment on wheter or not this is a Tin-Foil-Topic, but he does back up his claim.

Re:Think about this when you read it

Poor choice of words, but it's kind of embarrasing that you didn't get the real meaning of that. AT&T aren't just monitoring traffic that is generated from or destined for their customers -- they're tapping routed traffic, too.

It's not only relevant, it's downright disheartening. Boycotting AT&T won't be enough; You might have to do a tracert ahead of every request to find out if your data will be passing through an AT&T-owned server at some point, lest the government filters promote your data for suspicion and persecution. With the pervasiveness of AT&T's infrastructure holdings in the US, I would think twice about accusing TFA of hyperbole. I mean, if they only collect a tiny fraction of the data, but keep records for every user whose traffic passes through their nodes, I'd have a hard time saying that word choice is wrong.

I was going to give a nice reply...

...pointing out the flaw in your thinking and/or reading. But it looks like better people beat me to it, so I'll just say:

No we know why YOU'RE not working for AT&T!

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

This isn't a court case in any sane sense. The Administration is quashing evidence by citing national security in every instance. Since the evidence shows the Administration is lying and breaking the law, the Administration is simply shutting off any prosecution at will. That, by the way, is a felonious use of the national security laws. The laws were not intended to hide crimes.

Since they are firstly lawbreakers, and secondly feloniously using the security hole to protect themselves, the ONLY WAY TO STOP THEM is the use of the 1st Amendment to publish evidence against them, since no court can touch them. That is why we have a 1st amendment. Otherwise, we are subject to a shadow king operating under secret laws that are treasonous to speak of.

I don't recall electing a king.

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

>Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?

Well, presumably my lawyer would insist on jury members who hadn't read the evidence.

If everyone in the world has seen evidence and made up their mind, my lawyer could ask for dismissal on the grounds that pretrial publicity made a fair trial impossible.

And if I'd asked to have evidence sealed as a "trade secret", and it turned out that it was nothing of the kind, I'd kind of expect the judge to hit me on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and say "BAD litigant!".

Hm.

As an ex-Narus employee, this is a load of FUD. How many systems do you think it would take to capture the entire internet backbone every second? How much storage do you think it would take? Do you even consider what it would take, CPU horsepower wise, to capture maintain session state, filter and report on EVERY single communication protocol thread passing through the entire internet?

Probably about the same amount as used by systems like Echelon [wikipedia.org], of which this is probably an integrated or at the very least, a related piece.

And no, I really don't want to hear from the tree hugging, long hair hippy freaks who want to espouse their "Orwellian" big brother theories.

It's weird how people who make such a stink about 'liberals', (which as far as I can make out, are an illusory beast which only truly inhabit the skulls of bottom-rank neo-con rabble), often tend to include huge doses of emotionally charged name-calling among their various modes of 'argument'.

The only other group I know of which is so consistent in their use of jock-strap idioms, volume and general schoolyard childishness are indeed schoolyard children.

I find this consistency automatically validating as it means I am by contrast the more mature thinker and by extension, probably right most of the time whenever I disagree with a neo-con. Mature thinkers like to work through data thoroughly rather than jump to conclusions based on emotions and ego.

-FL

Re:"Sniff the ENTIRE 'Net" is a load of liberal FU

Because, of course, all FUD is liberal. Calling something "liberal" doesn't make any points for you, it just makes your argument partisan. And that takes away any power you might have had to change the minds of "liberals" who might read it, no matter how good your data may be. If you want to convince a liberal they are wrong, don't call them a communist. If you want to convince a conservative they are wrong, don't call them jack-booted thugs. Just make your point, and if there is intelligence there, it might stick. Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwidth.

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

I totally agree.

This "leak" stinks of political motivation aimed at the President and his administration. Who is, ironically, legally allowed to do because of what the Client administration set in motion/made legal.

Also, the fear mongering associated with this NSA program is full of ignorance to the Nth degree: someone already knows whom I've called; the phone companies have known, already know, and won't stop knowing because they keep records for years of whom you call and who calls you. If you don't like that, go to a carrier that doesn't keep any records of your phone calls: they don't exist, even Quest keeps those records.

Re:"Sniff the ENTIRE 'Net" is a load of liberal FU

You state:

Personally, if the NSA, CIA, FBI or any other government agnecy, believes a terrorist organization is potentially using a segement of the internet and they want install fiber splitter to be able to filter and report on who they are talking to and what data they are passing, I, for one, am fully in favor of it.

but then go on to say

If you want to do something illegal, don't use a telephone, cell phone or the internet... if you want to thwart the Narus (or any other) data capture and processing, encrypt your data. This has also always been true for land lines, cell phones and the internet.

This to my mind is the biggest problem with a lot of the government-sponsored surveillance - do you really think that a terrorist organisation would naively send plain-text emails to each other detailing their plans? Just as with the recent story on the British Government wanting private encryption keys [slashdot.org], this kind of behaviour simply effects the law-abiding public, as anyone doing something illegal will sidestep around it.

Re:Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Docume

Anonymous Troll. I /spit on you.

If you are doing something illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid maybe the NSA's monitoring system will make you think twice about doing it.

This argument is perhaps the single worst position one can hold in a discussion of rights.

Anytime one hears this, the intelligence and/or motives of the speaker should immediately be cast into doubt. Either you aren't intelligent enough to understand the issues at hand, have not thought about them at length, or are trying to do something evil.

Rights are not to protect the innocent. Rights are not to protect the "good people". Rights are there to protect the conglomerate of the human race. The guilty, the despised, the evil, the criminals, the dictators, the masterminds of genocide; each and every one of these has the same rights as you and me, except in so far as they can be demonstrably proven to utilize their rights to infringe yours or mine.

Furthermore, lets look at how you qualified that statement: illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid
1. Illegal: Yes, the government should be involved in cases of illegality.
2. Immoral: No, the government should NOT be involved in cases of what is or is not immoral. There is no universal standard of immorality. If you ask conservative Christian groups, they would say the Da Vinci Code movie was immoral, as it blasphemed their lord. If you talked to Catholic groups, they would say that contraception is immoral. If you talk to conservative Islamic groups, they would say that equal rights for non-believers and/or women are immoral. The government should not be picking and choosing ANY of these battles; and you should not fear for your own moral framework based upon the governments.
3. Nasty: If what you are doing is _legal_, it doesn't matter if it is nasty. There's no prohibition against being bad tempered, or even "evil". The prohibition is against illegal actions. If it infringes someone elses rights, than make it illegal, and handle it through a court of law, same as everything else the U.S. and/or state governments enforce against.
4. Dumb: Being dumb is a right. You have a right to fuck up as much as you like. As long as it is legal, the NSA should not be involved in your personal stupidity. You have a right to be as stupid as anyone else.
5. Stupid: See #4.

Here is a little better discussion of the matter. In a nutshell, determing what is "illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid" is extremely difficult, and I'm not interested in having the government determine what is and is not deviant. 70 years ago Congress would have said that surveillance of Negroes (Yes, that term is _exactly_ what Congress would have used for African-Americans)and Chinamen (Yes, this is ALSO another term that has graced the halls of Congress).

Today, there are movements with Congress to criminalize homosexuality and conduct open and unlimited surveillance/detention of AMERICAN CITIZENS of Middle Eastern origin (like myself). Might I remind you of the McCarthy era [wikipedia.org], and the House Commitee on Un-American Activities [wikipedia.org]?

Joseph McCarthy, an incurable (and perhaps constant) drunk, paranoid, and somesay schizophrenic asshole routinely used phrases like, "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?"

Do you honestly believe that fascists like Rear Admiral John Poindexter [wikipedia.org], made infamous for his roll in Iran-Contra, who escaped life-long imprisonment on a technicality, and whom the Republic Party has now put in charge of the militaries "Total Information Awareness" (renamed Terrorist Information Awareness, har har), is more scrupulous than Joseph McCarthy?

Do you honestly believe that the rhetoric involved describing the constant hunt for terrorists in our borders, and the American People's demands for security is *ANY* differen

Re:Irresponsible "Journalism"

>Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL.

SecurityFocus columnist Mark Rasch [securityfocus.com] thinks the pen register statute [cornell.edu] applies, forbidding the collection of call records with a court order or a FISA warrant. His opinion is also that even with a warrant the surveillance has to be targeted. One loophole might be that the phone companies keep this kind of data as an inevitable part of their operations and can share it if they choose -- but 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) forbids them to turn it over to the government. Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) is also protected under 47 USC 222. Then there's the issue of breach of contract, or fraud, from the telcos violating their privacy policies. The remaining wiggle room is not enough to say "perfectly legal", let alone "perfectly LEGAL".

Mark Rasch is a former prosecutor and holds a Juris Doctor degree. He's former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit.

NSA warrentless surveillance illegal

"For those who would try and turn this around to point at the current administration, Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL. NO laws have been broken in the process here. Now, we may not LIKE what is going on, but not liking it doesn't make it illegal."

The AT&T case at issue is believed to relate to the warrentless surveillance of the content of phone calls between people within the US and people overseas. This is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It states:

"(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--

...

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;"

A "United States person" is a citizen or resident alien. It goes on to state other conditions. There is no evidence that any of these conditions (either excluding US persons or submitting of the oath of certification) have been followed in this case; therefore, the program is in violation of the law. Usually people call this "illegal".

Now, you could say it's "perfectly legal" in the sense that this seemingly clear violation of the law may be construed to be an exception under a radical interpretation of law held by a few appointees of the administration. Usually, though, a few people with vested interests offering a controversial argument that an action may be legal would not be termed, "perfectly LEGAL."

Attorney General Gonzales has argued that either a) Congress gave the executive the extra authority for this program under the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan or b) FISA is unconstitutional. (a) seems like a strange argument given that Gonzales has said elsewhere that they did not ask Congress for permission specifically becuase they feared they would be denied. (b) requires a very extreme interpretation of presidential power (essentially that the executive can break any law passed by Congress as long as they say it's for the war on terror). Anyway, if you're really interested in why Gonzales arguements are bogus, don't take my word for it, check out what this collection of eminent legal and constitutional scholars had to say [nybooks.com].

Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT

"Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?

Thank you Wired News for trampling what justice system we have left."

I guess we should hold them to the same standard the rest of us live under now:

"If you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of?"