Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Document 559
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5)
Standing your ground... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Coupled with Gonzales's remarks below... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but will a slashdotting?
Re:Are you nuts!?!?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to stand up to them. (Score:5, Insightful)
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!).
That's an excellent point. (Score:3, Insightful)
When you lose your fear, you are Free. Again, our Forefathers were willing to die for their beliefs. And they publicly signed the Declaration of Independence even though it would be their death warrant if they lost.
Now, too many of us are willing to trade that Freedom for a false security. Too many of us live in fear of the consequences of Freedom.
In the words of Mark Twain (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open for litigation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Open for litigation (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Open for litigation (Score:4, Insightful)
EVERYTHING is "treason". (Score:5, Insightful)
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". (Score:4, Funny)
Good... 'cause I'm only interested in taking out the Republican and Democratic parties...
;-)
Treason is actually defined in the US Constitution (Score:3, Informative)
Article III, Section 3, states:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 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.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person
Re:Treason is actually defined in the US Constitut (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Thank you Wired.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3)
The thing is, it is very hard for the upper x% to argue for anything other than a meritocracy. Unions serve to make everyone get the same rewards, regardless of effort or ability - so it brings up the slackers and down the hackers, so you can easily see why hackers would be against it.
A simpler metric might be: Who thinks that Clinton is better than Bush? Who thinks that Bush is better than
Re:You would not be "modded down" by a conservativ (Score:5, Informative)
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.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Thank you Wired.... (Score:3)
Free speech wasn't born yesterday, neither was Slashdot's moderation abuse, and neither was I. Freedom is not just an abstract legalism, but a way of life. Tyranny is a way of death. The distinction isn't always obvious, but it's not subtle.
Re:Get a new line (Score:3)
This might seem amazing but... (Score:3, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
-Rick
Re:This might seem amazing but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reporters are worried they are already subject to this kind of thing http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/1
Re:This might seem amazing but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I'd love it if the government would use it's secret domestic spying ability to intervene on behalf of a private corporation in a lawsuit. That'd be keen.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This might seem amazing but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wired, you are our heroes! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wired, you are our heroes! (Score:3, Funny)
Please stop anthropomorphizing information. It doesn't like it when you do that...
AT&T fear they will suffer severe harm (Score:4, Funny)
These documents should not be protected (Score:5, Informative)
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Good job, Wired. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Informative)
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].
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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:
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.
Yea.... (Score:3, Insightful)
what defines "aid"???
Such a blatant attack on freedom. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Such a blatant attack on freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Should we trust AT&T with our data? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 Documents Should not have been sealed (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
In anticipation of a takedown order... (Score:3, Informative)
Wow... If the EFF doesn't get 'em... (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sharing numbers with NSA is legal (Score:5, Interesting)
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....
Re:Sharing numbers with NSA is legal (Score:3, Informative)
No, they couldn't. The government could buy the records in the course of an investigation, but data mining, even if the data is legally obtained, still violates the 4th amendment. In theory, at least, though in practice the 4th has been shat upon.
Smith vs. Maryland doesn't apply here since Smith was a suspect in the robbery in question --
AT&T's Special Treatment? (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering Qwest, seems likely (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like proper CALEA Lawful Intercept install (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Looks like proper CALEA Lawful Intercept instal (Score:3, Insightful)
I have, but usually AT&T is not going ot have the "best path" to customers of UUNet, for example, except to an AT&T transit customer. Which qualifies as traffic that AT&T could be asked to intercept.
BTW, I agree that this whole AT&T/Narus/NSA situation is a terrible assualt on liberty, I just want to be sure that people put the blame where it belongs. The congressmen and senators that write these bad laws, the presidents for signing them, an
Re:Looks like proper CALEA Lawful Intercept instal (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what's all the fuss about? Why was there a gag order on this information?
Seems that somebody thinks that this information reveals something important, and I figure they know a lot more than you...
Grand Inquisitor Gonzales (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush certainly has "a new kind of war" in the Terror War: our goverment is at war with our people.
Proprietary? Trade secrets? Er, I don't think so (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It's not a damn secret. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wet your pants funny! (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
NSA-AT&T scandal (Score:4, Informative)
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].
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:3, Informative)
EFF was under the gag order. Wired was not.
--jeffk++
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:3, Insightful)
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?
Where are the Democrats who are decrying the laws THEY voted for as foul and evil? This is an election year, though, so we can't really tell if they'r
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:3, Insightful)
*Currently* the Bush administration is at fault with this issue, so we blame Bush. Pretty simple.
No solutions, only bitter complaining (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Name one period in history where this has happened when the Democrats held all od the power.
Yes, there are craven power seekers in the Democratic party. They're politicians, after all. But there is one essential thing lacking on the Democratic side: absolute party unity. Republicans have it, Democrats don't.
I consider myself to the left of the spectrum. I have been a registered Democrat at times. Today I learned that a Democratic representative
Re:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:4, Insightful)
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!!"
Wired did the right thing ... for a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Thanks for respecting the legal process - NOT (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Hopefully this will get solved in court (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully this will get solved in court (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Irresponsible "Journalism" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
But the administration which made those laws. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Irresponsible "Journalism" (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Irresponsible "Journalism" (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Think about this when you read it (Score:5, Informative)
Another
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Think about this when you read it (Score:4, Informative)
Two problems with your objections. . . (Score:3)
You appear to assume two things which I strongly disagree with. .
1. That "standard operating procedures" are not heavily fixed, (see recent appointments to the supreme court), so that Bush's morally defunct policies are upheld, (ie., the individual cannot fight abuse by the coroporate body),
2. That there is some semblance of similarit
Re:Isn't John Poindexter a convicted felon? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Sniff the ENTIRE 'Net" is a load of liberal FU (Score:3, Insightful)
but then go on to say
Re:Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Docume (Score:3, Insightful)
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 evi