Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)

«‹›85 »

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Oh wow, other interesting stuff in that Der Spiegel report:

They're using MITM attacks as droppers for smartphone malware, which can turn your phone into a roving microphone. loving called it.

quote:

This also relates to an issue that the British have made a focal point of their intelligence-gathering activities: the most comprehensive access possible to worldwide mobile networks, the critical infrastructures for the digital age.

Mobile networks are a blessing and a curse for spies worldwide. Because each major wireless communications company operates its own networks, tapping into them becomes more complex. On the other hand, the mobile multi-use devices in our pockets are a blessing, because they often reveal more personal information than stationary computers, such as the user's lifestyle habits and location. They can also be transformed into bugging devices that can be activated remotely at any time to listen in on the user's conversations.

"We can locate, collect, exploit (in real time where appropriate) high value mobile devices & services in a fully converged target centric manner," a GCHQ document from 2011 states. For years, the British spies have aspired to potentially transform every mobile phone on the planet into a monitoring tool that could be activated at any time.
...
[snipped some stuff on attacking Belgacom, and then]
...
For the British, all of this was apparently only an intermediate step on the path to a greater goal. In addition to the conventional Internet, GCHQ now wants to turn the mobile web into an all-seeing surveillance machine.

This is how the GCHQ spies described their "vision" in 2011: "Any mobile device, anywhere, anytime!"

In this context, the attacks on Belgacom and the clearinghouses merely serve as door openers. Once the telecommunications companies' actual mobile phone networks have been infiltrated, completely new monitoring possibilities present themselves to the spies. A briefing dating from 2011 stated the agency wanted to "increase operational capability to remotely deploy implants when we only know the MSISDN." In other words, GCHQ's phone hackers would ideally like to repurpose every mobile phone in the world into a bugging device, merely on the basis of the phone number. "That would be game changing," the document reads.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/ghcq-targets-engineers-with-fake-linkedin-pages-a-932821.html

Slide deck:

I thought that was supposed to be absolutely impossible, particularly on a wide scale. It appears that intelligence services don't pay attention to the opinion of random naysayers, who would have imagined?

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 12, 2013

# ? Nov 12, 2013 17:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 09:33

RealityApologist: Mar 29, 2011; ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS

Forums Terrorist posted:

Man, where's Eripsa? I remember him pushing the tech will set us free line.

I never claimed tech would set us free. I only claimed it would allow us to organize outside of the constraints of traditional economic and political hierarchies. Surely the leaks and public response confirms the need for such alternative organizational structures.

We are witnessing the slow death of the state. Everyone understands that we need alternatives to our existing political structure. Events like this surely hasten the move away from those traditional organizations and towards new alternatives. An entire generation of techies has become completely soured on the government because of these leaks.

Is anyone arguing that these leaks, and the political developments they've generated, are actually good for technocratic state capitalism? Does anyone think our system is actually stronger now because of our existing surveillance strategies? Is there anyone credible left defending the existing order of things?

# ? Nov 12, 2013 18:58

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Define "good for". Increased ability to monitor the activity of the population is certainly advantageous to stability, as is how technology makes real-life social networks transparent in numerous ways (GPS tracking, network analysis, etc).

During the Arab Spring, governments would identify key troublemakers on social networks and take various steps to make them less troublesome. Even our own government arrests key activists in advance of Occupy protests. That's the future of internet-driven political activity. That stuff is scrub-league compared to what our government could do if it chose.

As an example with today's release: if you really wanted to go full :hitler:

, you could probably target a cell tower in New York with a MITM, and either wait for GPS coordinates to flow through or drop some malware on everyone's phone and make it send coordinates every couple minutes (which would give you higher resolution). Everyone's cell phone has GPS nowadays because of E911 requirements. Then if you know one troublemaker, you know everyone they meet with, and you can turn the troublemaker's microphone on and hear what they're planning in advance.

There's a fundamental dichotomy between activism and making yourself a target. The better you spread the message, the more you interact with other people who are targets, the more you make yourself a target. But low levels of messaging are unlikely to break people away from the Xbox or whatever. Yes, you can "organize better", but they can see you doing that and pick it apart faster than you can organize if they chose. And "going off the grid" attracts attention all on its own. Everyone basically carries around their own little tracking device nowadays, and it's socially normal to the point where not doing it is weird and suspicious.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Nov 12, 2013

# ? Nov 12, 2013 19:31

amanasleep: May 21, 2008

Paul MaudDib posted:

Define "good for". Increased ability to monitor the activity of the population is certainly advantageous to stability, as is how technology makes real-life social networks transparent in numerous ways (GPS tracking, network analysis, etc).

During the Arab Spring, governments would identify key troublemakers on social networks and take various steps to make them less troublesome. Even our own government arrests key activists in advance of Occupy protests. That's the future of internet-driven political activity. That stuff is scrub-league compared to what our government could do if it chose.

As an example with today's release: if you really wanted to go full , you could probably target a cell tower in New York with a MITM, and either wait for GPS coordinates to flow through or drop some malware on everyone's phone and make it send coordinates every couple minutes (which would give you higher resolution). Everyone's cell phone has GPS nowadays because of E911 requirements. Then if you know one troublemaker, you know everyone they meet with, and you can turn the troublemaker's microphone on and hear what they're planning in advance.

There's a fundamental dichotomy between activism and making yourself a target. The better you spread the message, the more you interact with other people who are targets, the more you make yourself a target. But low levels of messaging are unlikely to break people away from the Xbox or whatever. Yes, you can "organize better", but they can see you doing that and pick it apart faster than you can organize if they chose. And "going off the grid" attracts attention all on its own. Everyone basically carries around their own little tracking device nowadays, and it's socially normal to the point where not doing it is weird and suspicious.

The only way to fight back is by aggressively publicizing the methods and acts of repression, although it helps greatly to have sympathetic advocates inside the established power structure to vouch for you if you get into trouble. This was why Occupy was so easy to squelch.

# ? Nov 12, 2013 20:01

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Big ol' The Verge article summarizing everything. I generally recommend The Verge stories as it's a site that synthesizes high and low culture well, in my opinion.

# ? Nov 12, 2013 20:41

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

The DHS just lost a lawsuit and is now required to disclose its operating procedures regarding an internet shutdown.

quote:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must disclose its plans for a so-called Internet �kill switch,� a federal court ruled on Tuesday.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the agency�s arguments that its protocols surrounding an Internet kill switch were exempt from public disclosure and ordered the agency to release the records in 30 days. However, the court left the door open for the agency to appeal the ruling.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is seeking �Standard Operating Procedure 303,� also known as the �Internet kill switch� from Homeland Security. The protocols govern shutting down wireless networks to prevent the remote detonation of bombs.

The broad government power to shut down communications networks worries civil libertarians. However, the agency argues the protocols must be kept secret to protect national interests and the safety of individuals.

EPIC filed a FOIA request for the protocols in July 2012. The Department of Homeland Security originally said it could not find any records on the kill switch.

After EPIC appealed, the agency located the protocol, but redacted nearly all of the information. The agency cited exemptions that allow the withholding of information that could �disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions� or �could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.�

The court said Homeland Security wrongly claimed that it could withhold Standard Operating Procedure 303 as a �technique for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.�

The court also found that interpreting a safety exemption to �encompass possible harm to anyone anywhere in the United States within the blast radius of a hypothetical unexploded bomb also flies in the face of repeated Supreme Court direction to read FOIA exemptions narrowly.�

While the court rejected the agency�s broad interpretation of FOIA exemptions, it left the door open for further appeals by Homeland Security. The agency has 30 days to release the protocols to EPIC, but the court issued a 30-day additional stay on its opinion to allow the agency time to appeal.

http://freebeacon.com/court-homeland-security-must-disclose-internet-kill-switch/

# ? Nov 14, 2013 21:49

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

So I just learned that the university I work for is planning to give Edward Snowden an honorary doctorate

# ? Nov 14, 2013 22:38

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Buzzfeed has a very good article about David Miranda and his detention:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/natashavc/david-miranda-is-nobodys-errand-boy

quote:

David Miranda and I are debating whether or not to take off our shirts in the middle of a throbbing dance floor inside the heart of gay Rio de Janeiro. Silvery blue lights and men the size of sparrows swirl around us as we gauge the euphoria of the crowd. �It�s not that kind of party, honey!� Miranda shouts hoarsely over the Brazilian dance mix of Ke$ha�s �Die Young.�

We opt instead to gulp the night air. We pound our cocktails and bound out of the split-level nightclub to chat and smoke on the cracked Portuguese-style pavement. A thin white man in his mid-thirties with birdy lips, piss-water blonde hair, and uncool jeans follows us out the door. Miranda and I bullshit with some fellow revelers on the patio: a pudgy art dealer, a redhead, and a bespectacled line cook who has a �thing� for Rhoda Morgenstern. The man with the bird lips lingers close by. Miranda, 28, dusky, pillow mouthed, chiseled, with dark wine eyes, is too fine a specimen not to be cruised tonight, but Bird Lips is standing a little too close and appears, by the jutting of his chin and the self-conscious tilt of his head, to be eavesdropping on our conversation.

Miranda and I shoot each other a wary glance and move back inside. Just as we are about to lose ourselves in a Cher dubstep-banger, Bird Lips perches behind us, unmoving, and begins to stare. We traverse the dance floor; he follows.

What do you call someone who believes they are being spied on? Paranoid? What if that person�s not only been spied on, but also already detained by an intelligence agency? When they hush their voice in a crowd or hold a waiter, cabbie, or a stranger at a dance club in a prolonged gaze of suspicion, do you chalk it up to being traumatized or just overcautious?

If you are David Miranda, then on Nov. 3, the British government classified you in legal brief as a terrorist and a conduit for espionage. You�ve been detained in a Heathrow Airport bunker under the Terrorism Act of 2000 and interrogated for nine hours without a lawyer by unnamed U.K. officials for transporting classified documents between Berlin and Brazil. If you are David Miranda, there�s reason to believe the CIA has broken into your house and stolen your laptop. You�ve been called a spy, a hero, a lawn boy, and a drug mule. Your husband is Glenn Greenwald, M15 agents have the passwords to your smartphone, and British border agents have probably logged on to your Skype account, so you have every reason in the world to worry why this guy is standing so loving close to you.

Miranda whips around, squares his shoulders, thrusts his face to Bird Lips� ear, and demands to know: �What are you doing? Are you following us?� Bird Lips gets ruffled and bolts out of the club not to be seen again. �That wasn�t just me, right? He was following us!� Miranda insists over the pounding techno, �I�m not crazy, right?�

When news of Miranda�s nine-hour detention at Heathrow broke on Aug. 19 and turned him into a household name overnight, cable news pundits and thousands of tweets percolated with speculation and far-flung theories about how willing a player Miranda was in the Glenn Greenwald�Edward Snowden surveillance scandal that had been making headlines for months.

One of those theories posited that the gaping social chasm between Miranda�s and Greenwald�s backgrounds suggested that the highly educated American lawyer turned whistle-blowing journalist with a background in the ruthless world of New York corporate law had cynically manipulated his younger, slum-raised, hunky, ostensibly ignorant boyfriend into being an unwitting human courier dispatched on a highly dangerous mission.

�I don�t mean to be unkind, but he was a mule,� Jeffrey Toobin, chief legal analyst for CNN, told Anderson Cooper in the days following Miranda�s detention. �He was given something � he didn�t know what it was � from one person to another at the other end of an airport.� Toobin said he believed the U.K. government was totally justified in detaining Miranda and that the Brazilian native �was lucky that they used the terrorism law� because he was ultimately not arrested.

After I spent several weeks with Miranda and Greenwald in and around their home in the upscale, artist-friendly Rio neighborhood of Gavea over the last month, one thing has become very clear: David Miranda knew exactly what he was doing. To believe he was played as some type of dupe or mule by Greenwald not only ignores the real nature of their relationship but also assumes that there�s some safer way to transport sensitive documents across the globe. Is there any device more fail-safe and secure than the person you love the most? Does Apple make that sort of product?

Miranda knew very well that he was traveling from Rio to Berlin to see Greenwald�s reporting partner, documentarian Laura Poitras, and that he would be returning through the U.K., all the time carrying a heavily encrypted flash drive directly related to the trove of documents that former and now notorious CIA employee Edward Snowden had vacuumed from the National Security Agency and had given to Greenwald earlier in the year.

As to the relative risk of this adventure, Greenwald and Miranda knew that others who made the same trek were, in the eyes of the authorities, much �hotter� and more conspicuous than Miranda. �Numerous Guardian employees who have worked heavily on this story flew in and out of Heathrow multiple times without incident,� Greenwald says, �including when they were carrying materials.� Three weeks before Miranda�s detention, Poitras herself � who met with Snowden in Hong Kong and wrote numerous articles about the documents � flew to London, entering the U.K., and had no problems. Why would they stop someone much more peripheral like Miranda? the couple reasoned.

�I have been involved in every aspect of Glenn�s life, why wouldn�t I be a part of this?� Miranda asserts over lunch at a fashion mall in Rio�s S�o Conrado neighborhood the next afternoon. �I think what Snowden did was heroic. Glenn and Laura�s reporting is so important. It caused a serious debate about privacy and internet freedom in my country and around the world. I�m so proud to be able to play any role at all in that. I�d go to jail for that.�

His already throaty voice is a little huskier from singing along to Justin Timberlake the night before. Miranda has the day off from a cramped school week that includes a major group project on branding and marketing for a local caf�. Miranda is in his final year at university, where he is majoring in communications. He would ideally like to become a marketing and communications specialist for a major media company, particularly one with a thriving video game department.

�Glenn and I have talked all the time about what doing these stories would do to our lives. Since we met, I�ve pushed him and supported him,� Miranda says. He starts counting on his fingers: �I�ve helped him negotiate contracts; I make sure he gets paid what he deserves � Glenn just wants to work and sometimes will do it for cheap.� Miranda�s list continues with ascending urgency. �When Glenn publishes NSA stories in foreign countries, I help reach out to press so the stories get the most exposure. For a while we considered starting our own website to publish the NSA documents; when Glenn thought The Guardian was taking too long to publish the first NSA story, I told him he had to make them know he would go somewhere else to publish if they delayed too much.�

�I was in Hong Kong,� Greenwald says, referring to his first meeting with Snowden in early June. �We were eager to have the world learn about this spying as soon as possible. And we didn�t want any fear-driven institutional constraints getting in the way.� Greenwald credits Miranda with pushing him to hold The Guardian�s feet to the fire and not delay on this bombshell publication.

�I had my chat box open on my laptop while talking to Guardian editors, and I had David on the phone in my ear, and he�s dictating what to write to them word by word. It was something like, �Please consider this my resignation if the article is not published by 5 p.m. today,� and I was like, �Oh my god, David, I cannot say that!�� But Miranda kept pushing. Greenwald sent a more compromising, though still firm message. Before 5 p.m. that day, the first NSA story was published on The Guardian�s website.

�David is a grown, 28-year-old man,� Greenwald says, visibly bristling at the accusation that Miranda was an exploited errand boy. �He is the most insanely willful person I have ever met; it makes me crazy sometimes. He was an orphan and had to take care of himself very early on in a way few people do. So it�s absurd to think that I could manipulate him into anything he didn�t want to do. A lot of this is pure racism, classism, and ethnocentricity: Some white Americans see a nonwhite Brazilian who grew up poor and doesn�t speak perfect English, and so disgustingly assume that he�s dumb, na�ve, and easily manipulated.�

Miranda�s life has been totally transformed and taken a radically different course since he laid his beach towel down next to Greenwald�s on a Rio de Janeiro beach eight years ago. �We knew we were loving with power,� Miranda says.

But what has shocked both men is that somebody engaged in a journalistic endeavor like Miranda could be labeled a terrorist by the U.K. �I guess we should have known,� says Greenwald. �This is a country with a history of repressing press freedoms, that has no constitutional guarantee of a free press. I mean, they still have a queen. Is there anything more primitive and authoritarian than a loving monarchy?�

Just how much bad blood simmers between these two men and the British government comes to the fore as Miranda recounts here, for the first time, the granular details of his Kafkaesque detention in Heathrow Airport. The news of this detention flashed globally on Aug. 19, but the chain of events that led to this incident began in an unkempt Hong Kong hotel room months earlier.

It was June when Snowden, Greenwald, and Poitras were working out of Snowden�s cramped, littered Hong Kong hotel room with Guardian reporter Ewan MacAskill, pushing out the most explosive stories about government overreach since the Pentagon Papers. Snowden offered Greenwald some advice before he headed back Brazil with a cache of NSA documents: Make a copy and give them to someone Greenwald trusts with his life. There needed to be contingencies, Snowden told Greenwald � a backup plan should Greenwald�s archive be damaged, confiscated, or if the exiled NSA contractor should ever be captured or disappeared.

�There�s only one person who fits that description, of course,� Greenwald says, reaching across the outdoor dinner table to Miranda. The floppy tropical fronds of restaurant veranda hang motionless in the dank Brazilian dusk as Greenwald lightly brushes Miranda�s fingertips with his own. Miranda, sitting in front of a roiling fondue bowl, scrunches his lips sideways and nods with a cocksure smirk to Greenwald. �That�s right!� declares Miranda.

From Hong Kong, Greenwald told Miranda by Skype � they had not yet had reason to suspect their conversations would be monitored � he would be taking Snowden�s advice and in a few days would email Miranda a heavily encrypted copy of the NSA archive to be stored on a thumb drive or a cloud, in a place that nobody but Miranda would know. Miranda would not be able to access the documents � he would not have the encryption key � but there would always be an available copy should something happen to Greenwald�s.

�And that�s when it all started,� Miranda says in a once-upon-a-time tone.

It was with this Skype conversation, the couple believe, that Miranda became a target not only of government surveillance but intimidation to suppress Greenwald�s journalism. �The whole thing is disgusting,� Miranda snorts.

Miranda started making arrangements to fly to Berlin and stay with Poitras. The simplest reason, Miranda explains: �Laura doesn�t like to talk on the phone.� And there was plenty to talk about � primarily movie rights. Studios started courting Miranda, Greenwald, and Poitras for rights to their story since Poitras� first images of an unshaven Snowden began to saturate the news cycle. (All signs point to a Sony-helmed production with Ed Norton perhaps playing Greenwald; Greenwald says he doesn�t care much which actor is chosen, but half-jokingly adds that only David Miranda could play David Miranda � �Who else could be so smoldering and broody?�) He planned to go Berlin to meet with Poitras and her editors to strategize on getting the best and �most serious� version of their story made into a movie, Miranda says.

�Plus,� Miranda adds playfully, �I needed a vacation!� Miranda originally planned to accompany Greenwald to Hong Kong in June but stayed in Rio to complete his finals. And there was some other business related to Greenwald and Poitras� journalism that Miranda could help out with on this trip.

Originally, The Guardian was going to fly a staffer to Berlin in July to courier documents between Poitras and Greenwald for stories they were working on together. On the day scheduled for the staffer�s flight to Germany, he instead asked Poitras to just FedEx the documents to Greenwald. �The Guardian had just destroyed their hard drives under orders from the [Government Communication Headquarters], and the U.K. government was becoming increasingly threatening,� Greenwald says, a mild sympathy in his voice. �I think this employee�s supervisor was just totally freaked out.� The sympathy quickly gives way to a more incredulous agitation: �But FedEx-ing classified documents? That was obviously not something Laura or I were willing to do.� (When asked about this series of events, a spokesperson for The Guardian said over email that the paper does not comment on its �process.�)

Poitras was also angered and disturbed by the suggestion. Guardian higher-ups eventually recanted and said they would be willing to have their employee fly to Berlin, but Poitras was unwilling to deal further with The Guardian over the issue. That left the question of how Greenwald would get the materials he needed. �David was going to Berlin to talk to Laura anyways,� Greenwald says, �and so he suggested that he just take the documents. Laura trusts David completely, so that became the new plan.�

Because Miranda was performing a service to support articles that were to be written for The Guardian, the newspaper paid for his trip and made his travel arrangements through London. Miranda flew to Berlin on Aug. 18 and did the typical club and upscale restaurant scene with Poitras and some of her friends in and around Alexanderplatz. Poitras and Miranda hashed out some details about movie rights � she was skeptical of signing anything that gives big studios access to her film archive or work.

Miranda decided toward the end of the trip to catch a later flight into London, where there was a short layover in Heathrow before continuing onto Rio. �I called the airline to change flights,� Miranda recalls, �and they wouldn�t let me. They didn�t give me any details, they just kept telling me they couldn�t do it. I knew the morning of my flight something bad was going to happen; I could feel it.�

Miranda and Greenwald now suspect the U.K. government was lying in wait to grab Miranda at Heathrow, knowing that he could be carrying documents or data from Poitras. Indeed, even the Obama White House was given an advance warning of Miranda�s detention but it isn�t clear with how much lead time. �There was a heads-up that was provided by the British government,� White House spokesman Josh Earnest said shortly after Miranda was grabbed.

�We didn�t tell anyone about my travel plans,� Miranda says. �Only me, Glenn, and Laura and a couple of people at The Guardian knew, so obviously the only way they could know what I was doing on this trip is if they were going through our emails and Skype logs.� Miranda�s suspicions that his detention was predetermined were confirmed last week at the initial hearing on his lawsuit against the British government. The government told the court it distributed a red-flag Port Circulation Sheet to its border agents in anticipation of Miranda�s arrival:

�Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of U.K. national security � We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people�s lives � Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism��

When Miranda�s plane landed, he says, the flight staff announced that everyone would have to show their passports as they exited the plane and crossed onto the tarmac at Heathrow. Miranda queued up, showed his passport, and was immediately taken by two border agents to a sterile, white, windowless room several floors below the departure gates, isolated from the airport�s hustle and bustle.

�I thought I knew exactly what was happening,� Miranda says flatly. �I knew because Laura had talked about being detained before on other assignments and I just thought to myself, I will try to be as vague as possible.� Inside the neon-washed holding room furnished only with a table and four chairs, the agents confiscated Miranda�s bags, including a laptop, cell phone, and encrypted flash drive. Under Section 7 of the U.K.�s anti-terrorism law, officials have the right to examine property and search anything the detained person is carrying.

Once Miranda was seated across from the two agents, he told them he knew why they had detained him. �It�s because of the work my partner is doing,� Miranda recalls, voicing the same braggadocio and confidence he showed at the nightclub. �So what do you want from me?�

�What sort of work is your partner doing?� one agent, who identified himself as Two-Oh-Five-Oh-Six, inquired with a seemingly benign curiosity.

�Come on,� Miranda responded, agitated.

�We don�t know who your partner is,� the agent replied flatly.

Miranda asked if he could have a lawyer; the agents told him he could speak to a lawyer who would be limited to explaining the Terrorism Act to him. What was his lawyer�s name? They would ring him straight away.

�Glenn Greenwald,� Miranda snapped.

�Does he practice law in the U.K.?�

Miranda bluffed and said Greenwald did practice in the U.K., but after one of the agents consulted a registry over the phone they found that Greenwald was not, in fact, a solicitor in Her Majesty�s kingdom. The agents told Miranda he could have an attorney from their own approved list, but that they could only speak by phone and would not be present for the rest of the interrogation. Miranda refused: �I told them no, because I did not trust their chosen lawyers or their phones. I also thought when a lawyer Glenn hired or someone from The Guardian did finally come to meet me, the agents would tell me I already had a lawyer and not allow me to talk to anyone else.�

One of the agents asked Miranda for the passwords to his cell phone, laptop, and flash drive. When Miranda did not respond, agents grew sterner and told him again that under the Terrorism Act he could be sent to prison for not cooperating with their requests. Miranda relented.

�I became scared at that moment because I know that people get disappeared by the U.S. and U.K. governments if they claim you�re a terrorist,� he says. �I didn�t have the encryption keys to allow access to the documents, but I did tell them my passwords to my personal phone and laptop.�

Miranda�s laptop browser was open to his email. His cell phone contained everything one�s cell phone typically does: contacts, emails, texts, pictures � the type of pictures you take with your romantic partner. The agents also took from Miranda�s backpack a piece of paper that had one of the passwords for the outer shell of the flash drive, not to core data, say Miranda and Greenwald. That flash drive is the focus of Scotland Yard�s ongoing criminal investigation against Miranda, British officials say. In a statement given after Miranda�s release, Oliver Robbins, deputy national security adviser for the U.K.�s Cabinet Office, said the flash drive contained �approximately 58,000 highly classified U.K. intelligence documents� that were �entirely of misappropriated� materials. Robbins chastised Miranda for exercising �very poor judgment.�

Miranda and Greenwald both claim the U.K. government is lying about what that one seized password enables. �It is impossible that they could have access to the documents,� Greenwald insists. �David did have a piece of paper, and it did have a password on it, but it did not allow access to the actual documents because there were multiple encryption walls around it. All the password allows access to is a list of the documents and, in some cases, a summary of them. They are lying when they claim it allowed access to the documents themselves, trying, as usual, to scare their public into submitting to their assertions of radical authority.�

When the agents got the passwords from Miranda, all pretenses collapsed and the interrogation began in earnest. We can only rely on Miranda�s retelling of the subsequent hours spent in the Heathrow interrogation room, since U.K. officials have never released audio or visual from the detention. Indeed, Miranda says when he asked if agents were recording, they said there was no recording allowed during the initial interrogation under the Terrorism Act � though the words �terrorism,� �bomb,� �weapon,� �murder,� and �destruction� were not mentioned by the agents, nor were any of the typical nouns often associated with endangering the lives of others. �They never once asked me a single question about terrorism,� Miranda says.

A rotating tag team of seven agents asked Miranda questions ranging from his personal life with Greenwald to his family background to his own politics. Miranda�s request for a translator was brushed aside, and all nine hours were spent being interrogated in English.

�First they tried to pit me against Glenn,� Miranda recalls. The agents asked Miranda whom he went to the nightclubs with in Berlin. �Boyfriends,� Miranda replied, meaning male friends. Did Glenn know about these boyfriends? �No.� How would Glenn feel if he knew Miranda was out with the other men? �Fine.� They asked if Miranda had been in contact with Edward Snowden. �No.� Were his family members political? �No.� They asked about Miranda�s political views. Did he support the street protests in Brazil? �Yes.� Did he participate in the protests? �No.�

�They offered me water, but they didn�t pour it front of me,� Miranda says with a note of pride. �So I said no. I didn�t trust them for a second, I never had a drink of water while I was there, and I never got up to go the bathroom.�

Back in Brazil, Greenwald was asleep at home. �I get a phone call at 6:30 in the morning, which you know is bad news,� Greenwald says. A man who gave no name identified himself as a �security official at Heathrow Airport� and said Miranda was in detention under the Terrorism Act. He told Greenwald that Miranda had been held at that point for three hours and that they could hold him up to nine hours, at which point they could arrest him, release him, or ask a judge for additional time to interrogate.

�I look it up, and it�s, like, less than 3% of people are held for more than an hour under that law, and less than .3% are held for more than three hours, and if you are held for more than an hour you often end up arrested,� Greenwald adds. �I definitely thought they were going to arrest him or haul him before a judge to seek more detention time, which would not go in our favor.� The interrogation reached its fifth hour when an agent came to tell Miranda that they had contacted Greenwald.

Greenwald spent the next several hours maniacally stress-eating Doritos, emailing everyone he knew at The Guardian, and chatting with Edward Snowden and Laura Poitras online. Between 2006 and 2010, Poitras herself was detained and interrogated more than 40 times after producing an Oscar-nominated documentary called The Oath about the U.S. occupation of Iraq and while working on a film about extremists in Yemen called My Country, My Country. �Ironically,� Poitras tells me via email, �the detentions stopped following an article Glenn wrote about an incident at Newark airport where agents threatened to handcuff me for taking notes because they said my �pen was a weapon.��

Poitras says that the most invasive border crossing she experienced occurred in 2010 at John F. Kennedy Airport: �They seized my laptop, phone, and camera and held them for 41 days,� Poitras recalls. �When I got my equipment back, the photos on one device had been viewed and a slide show had been created.�

After eight hours and 20 minutes, Miranda recalls, he was allowed to meet lawyers from The Guardian. After exactly nine hours, Miranda was released and told he would not be immediately charged. Miranda was told to wait in the customs inspection lounge while the agents tried to find a direct flight back for him to Rio. Miranda asked that his personal electronic devices be returned but was told they were now evidence in a pending criminal investigation and he could not have them back until the investigation was closed.

Another two hours passed with the British agents still holding his passport. The agent arranging Miranda�s travel then told him there were no more flights back to Rio that evening and that he would have to go through customs, stay the night in London, make his own arrangements with his own funds, and return to the airport to fly out the next day.

�That�s when I went crazy, because I was sure that if I walked out of the airport, they would find some reason to arrest me and disappear me in some prison,� Miranda says. �Also, they had just spent nine hours holding me as a possible terrorist, and now they wanted to force me to enter their country and walk free inside of it?�

He then did what H.L. Mencken once referred to as �hoist[ing] the black flag.� Miranda began to scream: �I am a Brazilian citizen!� The few dazed travelers coming in from their evening flights, waiting to have their passports stamped began to turn their heads. �I�m being held here against my will!� The customs agents froze. �I want to go home! They will not let me go home! They took my passport!� Within 20 minutes of Miranda�s screaming episode, the agents miraculously booked a direct flight back to Rio that night and returned his passport at the last moment as he entered the business class cabin.

�The day after I got home, Glenn yelled for me to come into the living room,� Miranda recalls. Greenwald had logged into his own Skype account. �Look,� Greenwald said, pointing to his contact list. A little green dot appeared and announced �David Miranda is online� but David Miranda was not online � he was standing next to Greenwald as he got dressed, getting ready to go to school. Miranda had not signed into his Skype account since his laptop was confiscated at Heathrow. �Those assholes in London were going through my Skype account,� Miranda says.

Now Miranda and Greenwald are fighting back, challenging the legality of Miranda�s detention, and they had their first hearing in front of a three-panel judge in London on Nov. 6. Miranda�s lawyer, Matthew Ryder, argued that he was carrying source materials for journalism, which was in the �global public interest.� For the U.K. government to invoke the Terrorism Act in order to search and seize his materials was using the law for an �improper purpose� and created a �disproportionate interference with Miranda�s right to freedom of expression.�

Ryder argued if the U.K. wanted to stop Miranda at Heathrow, they could have done so under normal law, which would have given him some protections as a journalist. The legal proceedings could drag on for months, especially as Greenwald�s latest revelations involve the British government. Greenwald�s recent departure from The Guardian has freed him from the draconian British press laws that could have hampered the U.K.-based daily from breaking this new round of stories.

�There�s a good chance that, at the lowest level, David won�t win his court case in the U.K.,� Greenwald says, plunking a skewer of raw shrimp into his fondue bowl.

�Don�t say that,� Miranda says, clicking his cheek in disapproval. �I hate it when you talk like that. It�s so negative.�

�It�s just that it�s a post-9/11 era,� Greenwald says gently. �I�ve just seen all these judges who are so subservient, who will get down on their knees in deference every time the state utters the words �terrorism� or �national security.�� He adds, to get back in Miranda�s good favor, �They�re trying to make an act of journalism into terrorism.�

If you ask Miranda about the dynamics between him and Greenwald (and the 10 stray dogs the couple have adopted), Miranda describes himself as the alpha. �I�m the pack leader,� Miranda tells me, grinning. �A son of Apollo.� Miranda tends to dominate through his moods; he�s quick to show his disdain, annoyance, or disappointment. �I�m a very emotional person,� Miranda says, putting both tan hands to his Armani-clad chest. �Like, you will always know how I�m feeling and when I�m feeling it.� Greenwald, a former champion high school debater, city council candidate, and courtroom litigator, tries to counter Miranda�s occasional brooding or temper with point-by-point arguments to the contrary.

�We yell when we fight,� Miranda admits, �but we never break up. There�s something in the universe that says we have to be together. I never met anyone like Glenn � he�s my husband and I don�t know where either of us would be without each other.� Miranda says early on in their relationship, when he was �young and more bull-headed,� he would devolve into fits of jealousy and despair when Greenwald would have to travel to New York to wrap up his law practice.

�I have attachment and abandonment issues because of how I grew up,� Miranda says with the self-awareness and diagnostic certainty that comes with long hours in a shrink�s office.

Miranda grew up in Jacarezinho, a favela town of 60,000 inhabitants, built along the railroad tracks of northern Rio. Miranda�s mother worked in Jacarezinho as a prostitute. He has four other brothers from unknown fathers whose whereabouts he�s unfamiliar with. When he was 5 years old, his mother died of ovarian cancer derived from a sexually contracted disease, and he was sent to live with one of his mother�s friends, who also worked as a prostitute.

�She slapped me the day of my mother�s funeral because I wasn�t crying,� Miranda recalls. �I didn�t really know my mom, so I didn�t know what I was losing.� Miranda doesn�t have many memories of his mother � the few he does are of passing kindness: extra treats when she would come home in the mornings, singing songs, letting him play with a bunny rabbit while she attended to men. The woman Miranda lived with had several sons and daughters who became Miranda�s surrogate siblings.

Miranda formed the closest bond to one of his adopted teenager sisters, a moody, defiant young girl who used to bring home books about witchcraft and love spells. The two would pore over the occult, Greek myths, and listen to early �90s rock together. When she began to pull away from the family, Miranda, at age 13, dropped out of school, and moved into a run-down apartment with some of his older cousins to claim his own independence. �I kept reading books and magazines on the bus when I�d go to work.� Miranda worked through his teenage years at a car wash, handing out sidewalk flyers for a local dentist, then working for the dentist directly. Eventually he moved into a sales position for the Brazilian lottery. �I was actually very happy at that time because I was free and totally in charge of my life.� But to this day Miranda refuses to set foot on a Rio bus, thanks to too many days spent riding in cramped buses with too little money.

The winter Miranda would turn 20, he met a Jewish-American lawyer on an Ipanema beach. Their courtship was intense and speedy, with the couple moving in together by week�s end. After two years of living together, they became common-law husbands.

Eventually Greenwald insisted that Miranda go back to school. �I just thought it was a tragic waste of intelligence for David not to continue his education,� Greenwald says. �He didn�t want to be reliant on me, and I didn�t want that either.� It took several years, but Miranda completed high school and is now in his final year of university.

At dinner, Greenwald and Miranda talk more about Heathrow and the detention; they rehash a few of Miranda�s zingers on a recent interview with Anderson Cooper. Whatever squabbles the couple has had in their eight years together � there have been some � they are still as bonded and protective over each other as ever.

�Heathrow was no big deal compared to the 12 hours I thought I was going to be murdered in my house when Glenn disappeared,� Miranda says with a flustered laugh. Greenwald begins to blush a bit.

Miranda spent a Sunday evening in early June partying until daylight: partly to celebrate Greenwald�s triumph for publishing the first NSA story, partly to avoid being alone in the house while Greenwald was in Hong Kong. This is the same weekend Greenwald told Miranda over Skype he was giving him his own copy of the NSA archives for safekeeping. Miranda went out for the evening and returned home at 6 a.m. He fed the 10 dogs, which bark, growl, and snarl at the slightest noise emitting from inside or around the couple�s large two-story house. Miranda plopped down at the kitchen table, checked his email on his laptop, and then dragged himself upstairs for a power nap. Four hours later, Miranda groggily walked downstairs and his laptop was gone.

�I looked everywhere, for over an hour, and I couldn�t find it,� Miranda says. �Then I thought, OK, someone broke in while I was asleep.� Miranda assumed that perhaps it was someone he was friendly with. �Maybe it was someone who knew I was married to Glenn and wanted to make money by breaking into our house and getting one of our laptops.� But how did they get past his dogs? That�s when Miranda started to get scared, but he didn�t want to throw Greenwald�s focus with talk of black-op home invasions.

Miranda went to bed early that evening and awoke the next morning to banging on his front door. Two men who said they were from the electric company came to shut the power off. �They said we were late on our bill, which is impossible because we�re never late.� He showed the men bills to no avail. The power went off. When Miranda called the electric company from his cell phone, the representative said their account was up to date but had some hold on it she could not undo. Greenwald was still in the air, unreachable on his flight between Dubai and Rio. Adding to Miranda�s anxiety was Snowden�s unknown whereabouts at the time � he had gone into hiding 48 hours prior.

�I spent the next 10 hours at home, with my dogs, with no electricity, waiting for Glenn to come home,� Miranda says. �But maybe he wasn�t going to come home! I started going crazy. I thought anything could happen to me, like bad things, and it could look like an accident or whatever. I stayed up all night in the dark.�

Greenwald arrived the following morning to a frantic Miranda. �I thought they got Snowden,� Miranda said, near tears. �I thought they got you.�

Greenwald thought it was a strange series of events but nothing like the sort of paranoid nightmare Miranda imagined. He dismissed Miranda�s consternation with a hug and some soothing words.

�Looking back,� Greenwald says, tilting his wine, a bit repentant and conciliatory, �I realize that David�s assumptions were more rational than mine. I didn�t want us to become those paranoid, creepy people who attribute every inexplicable event in their lives to the CIA.� This change of perspective came after he mentioned the events to one of The Guardian�s lawyers, who told him that �he had talked to all these people in the intelligence community and he had heard that the CIA has one of the most robust presences in Rio and that the CIA station chief in Rio is �notoriously aggressive.��

With Greenwald�s admission, Miranda looks pleased and vindicated and orders the check. �Ultimately, as harrowing and unjust as it was, the U.K. actually did us a favor,� Greenwald says as we head toward the car. �They revealed how abusive the U.S. and U.K. can be with power, which is a major point of the reporting I�m doing; they humanized the story, and they gave a platform for my charming and admirable husband to speak out.�

While Scotland Yard has been threatening a criminal charge to be brought against Miranda for months now, it�s unlikely any formal charges will be made, stemming in part from the fact that the British government has not been able to hack inside the encrypted flash drive. If the U.K. government was able to break into the flash drive and attempted to charge Miranda with espionage, it�s highly unlikely the Brazilian government would extradite him.

In the meantime, Miranda is not changing his plans. �I�m going to finish university next year and then I might take some post-graduate classes in journalism,� Miranda says. Then he plans to enter to enter the job market as a branding and communications specialist.

�We know we are probably under constant surveillance,� Miranda says, as we pile into the couple�s cherry red Jeep, �but we don�t give a gently caress. We�re not going to be stupid.�

�But we�re not going to live our lives in fear,� he adds as the car pulls away. �Now everyone in the world is watching, bitches!�

# ? Nov 15, 2013 14:52

amanasleep: May 21, 2008

Tezzor posted:

Buzzfeed has a very good article about David Miranda and his detention:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/natashavc/david-miranda-is-nobodys-errand-boy

�Now everyone in the world is watching, bitches!� #mirandizeme

# ? Nov 15, 2013 17:27

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

Jeremy Hammond got 10 years for hacking Stratfor. If only he had been smart and just laundered billions for the cartels he wouldn't be in this mess.

# ? Nov 15, 2013 18:43

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

HTTP/2 working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force is set to recommend that all web traffic be encrypted.

quote:

A vastly larger percentage of the world's Web traffic will be encrypted under a near-final recommendation to revise the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) that serves as the foundation for all communications between websites and end users.

The proposal, announced in a letter published Wednesday by an official with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), comes after documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden heightened concerns about government surveillance of Internet communications. Despite those concerns, websites operated by Yahoo, the federal government, the site running this article, and others continue to publish the majority of their pages in a "plaintext" format that can be read by government spies or anyone else who has access to the network the traffic passes over. Last week, cryptographer and security expert Bruce Schneier urged people to "make surveillance expensive again" by encrypting as much Internet data as possible.

The HTTPbis Working Group, the IETF body charged with designing the next-generation HTTP 2.0 specification, is proposing that encryption be the default way data is transferred over the "open Internet." A growing number of groups participating in the standards-making process�particularly those who develop Web browsers�support the move, although as is typical in technical deliberations, there's debate about how best to implement the changes.

"There seems to be strong consensus to increase the use of encryption on the Web, but there is less agreement about how to go about this," Mark Nottingham, chair of the HTTPbis working group, wrote in Wednesday's letter. (HTTPbis roughly translates to "HTTP again.")

He went on to lay out three implementation proposals and describe their pros and cons:

A. Opportunistic encryption for [url]http://[/url] URIs without server authentication�aka "TLS Relaxed" as per draft-nottingham-http2-encryption.

B. Opportunistic encryption for [url]http://[/url] URIs with server authentication�the same mechanism, but not "relaxed," along with some form of downgrade protection.

C. HTTP/2 to only be used with [url]https://[/url] URIs on the "open" Internet. [url]http://[/url] URIs would continue to use HTTP/1 (and of course it would still be possible for older HTTP/1 clients to still interoperate with [url]https://[/url] URIs).

In subsequent discussion, there seems to be agreement that (C) is preferable to (B), since it is more straightforward; no new mechanism needs to be specified, and HSTS can be used for downgrade protection.

(C) also has this advantage over (A) and furthermore provides stronger protection against active attacks.

The strongest objections against (A) seemed to be about creating confusion about security and discouraging use of "full" TLS, whereas those against (C) were about limiting deployment of better security.

Keen observers have noted that we can deploy (C) and judge adoption of the new protocol, later adding (A) if necessary. The reverse is not necessarily true.

Furthermore, in discussions with browser vendors (who have been among those most strongly advocating more use of encryption), there seems to be good support for (C), whereas there's still a fair amount of doubt/disagreement regarding (A).

quote:

As Nottingham acknowledged, there are major advantages and disadvantages for each option. Proposal A would be easier for websites to implement because it wouldn't require them to authenticate their servers using a digital certificate that is recognized by all the major browsers. This relaxation of current HTTPS requirements would eliminate a hurdle that stops many websites from encrypting traffic now, but it also comes at a cost. The lack of authentication could make it trivial for the person at an Internet cafe or the spy monitoring Internet backbones to create a fraudulent digital certificate that impersonates websites using this form of relaxed transport layer security (TLS). That risk calls into question whether the weakened measure is worth the hassle of implementing.

Proposal B, by contrast, would make it much harder for attackers, since HTTP 2.0 traffic by default would be both encrypted and authenticated. But the increased cost and effort required by millions of websites may stymie the adoption of the new specification, which in addition to encryption offers improvements such as increased header compression and asynchronous connection multiplexing.

Proposal C seems to resolve the tension between the other two options by moving in a different direction altogether�that is, by implementing HTTP 2.0 only in full-blown HTTPS traffic. This approach attempts to use the many improvements of the new standard as a carrot that gives websites an incentive to protect their traffic with traditional HTTPS encryption.

The options that the working group is considering do a fair job of mapping the current debate over Web-based encryption. A common argument is that more sites can and should encrypt all or at least most of their traffic. Even better is when sites provide this encryption while at the same time providing strong cryptographic assurances that the server hosting the website is the one operated by the domain-name holder listed in the address bar�rather than by an attacker who is tampering with the connection.

Unfortunately, the proposals are passing over an important position in the debate over Web encryption, involving the viability of the current TLS and secure sockets layer (SSL) protocols that underpin all HTTPS traffic. With more than 500 certificate authorities located all over the world recognized by major browsers, all it takes is the compromise of one of them for the entire system to fail (although certificate pinning in some cases helps contain the damage). There's nothing in Nottingham's letter indicating that this single point of failure will be addressed. The current HTTPS system has serious privacy implications for end users, since certificate authorities can log huge numbers of requests for SSL-protected websites and map them to individual IP addresses. This is also unaddressed.

It's unfortunate that the letter didn't propose alternatives to the largely broken TLS system, such as the one dubbed Trust Assertions for Certificate Keys, which was conceived by researchers Moxie Marlinspike and Trevor Perrin. Then again, as things are now, the engineers in the HTTPbis Working Group are likely managing as much controversy as they can. Adding an entirely new way to encrypt Web traffic to an already sprawling list of considerations would probably prove to be too much.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/encrypt-all-the-worlds-web-traffic-internet-architects-propose/

# ? Nov 15, 2013 18:44

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Anyone wonder why Google is encrypting internal data at a much faster clip than the rest of the affected companies? Trade secrets? My cynicism prevents me from saying respect for civil liberties, considering how their business model works.

# ? Nov 17, 2013 04:27

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

I'd imagine fear of losing business because as it stands they obviously cannot maintain the confidentiality of their hosted data even if they want to. Fear of backlash from the EU or some other company would probably be another option. Generally I think they're sensing that customer sentiments (individual and business) are not really with the NSA here and are trying to get out ahead of that before it hits their bottom line too hard (not out of the goodness of their hearts).

People are projecting the business impacts from this, it's not immense on a national scale but I'd say it's worrying if you're a business that provides data services.

quote:

In surveying its members this summer about the NSA disclosures, the Cloud Security Alliance - which develops security standards for Internet firms - found that 10 percent of the 207 foreign respondents had "canceled a project to use U.S.-based cloud providers" and 56 percent were "less likely" to use U.S. cloud providers in the future.

Such attitudes could prove expensive for companies here, according to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, an industry research group. Declaring that "Europeans in particular are trying to edge out their American competitors" in Internet services, it estimated in August that the NSA revelations could cost U.S. cloud providers up to $35 billion in 2016.

That estimate was deemed "too low" by James Staten, an analyst with Forrester Research, which studies business trends. He predicted the potential cost to U.S. cloud providers could reach $180 billion, noting that the NSA disclosures could derail business from potential customers in this country as well as overseas.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-nsa-spying-costly-internet-businesses.html

# ? Nov 17, 2013 05:36

Spergin Morlock: Aug 8, 2009; Fun Shoe

It's a good thing the NSA is protecting us like this. I wonder how many jobs will be growing in Europe/Asia instead of the USA as a result of those losses. It's not like the demand will go away, the supply will simply be located elsewhere.

# ? Nov 17, 2013 08:13

Hugh G. Rectum: Mar 1, 2011

Aurubin posted:

Anyone wonder why Google is encrypting internal data at a much faster clip than the rest of the affected companies? Trade secrets? My cynicism prevents me from saying respect for civil liberties, considering how their business model works.

They were also personally insulted by the NSA with a god drat smiley. I'd imagine they want to return the favor and turn it into a little frowny face on the next set of slides.

# ? Nov 17, 2013 23:00

Tanith: Jul 17, 2005; _{Alpha, Beta, Gamma cores

Use them, lose them, salvage more

Kick off the next AI war

In the Persean Sector}

Sudo Echo posted:

They were also personally insulted by the NSA with a god drat smiley. I'd imagine they want to return the favor and turn it into a little frowny face on the next set of slides.

Well I'm glad something good came of :nsa:

# ? Nov 18, 2013 06:09

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Aurubin posted:

Anyone wonder why Google is encrypting internal data at a much faster clip than the rest of the affected companies? Trade secrets? My cynicism prevents me from saying respect for civil liberties, considering how their business model works.

It's PR. Just as Google is particularly notorious among tech companies for vacuuming up as much data as possible, they try to counter the negative implications of that image by putting more work into looking like safe and responsible stewards of your data who give you full control over what is stored and how it's used. It's often a false impression, but Google moves fast on any opportunity to look like they're prioritizing their users' privacy.

# ? Nov 18, 2013 07:04

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Google's been also pushing pretty hard to get companies onto their web app platform for the office stuff, so I think they also have more to lose. While the general population might be quite apathetic to their cat pictures being spied on, organizations might not be so happy about exposing their data not only to Google, but also the NSA and possibly their competitors. And if they don't freak out on their own, the EU is already pissed off as it is and trying to put restrictions on data storage in the US, so they're probably in damage control mode over this as well.

# ? Nov 18, 2013 13:09

Fuckt Tupp: Apr 19, 2007; Science

This seems like a big development.

The Guardian posted:

Fisa court order that allowed NSA surveillance is revealed for first time
Fisa court judge who authorised massive tapping of metadata was hesitant but felt she could not stand in the way

A secret court order that authorised a massive trawl by the National Security Agency of Americans' email and internet data was published for the first time on Monday night, among a trove of documents that also revealed a judge's concern that the NSA "continuously" and "systematically" violated the limits placed on the program.
The order by the Fisa court, almost certainly its first ruling on the controversial program and published only in heavily redacted form, shows that it granted permisson for the trawl in part beacause of the type of devices used for the surveillance. Even the judge approving the spying called it a �novel use� of government authorities.
Another later court order found that what it called "systemic overcollection" had taken place.
Transparency lawsuits brought by civil liberties groups compelled the US spy agencies on Monday night to shed new light on the highly controversial program, whose discontinuation in 2011 for unclear reasons was first reported by the Guardian based on leaks by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
In a heavily redacted opinion Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the former presiding judge of the Fisa court, placed legal weight on the methods of surveillance employed by the NSA, which had never before collected the internet data of �an enormous volume of communications�.
The methods, known as pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, record the incoming and outgoing routing information of communications � traditionally phone calls made between individual users. Kollar-Kotelly ruled that acquiring the metadata, and not the content, of email and internet usage in bulk was harmonious with the �purpose� of Congress and prior court rulings � even though no surveillance statute ever authorized it and top officials at the justice department and the FBI threatened to resign in 2004 over what they considered its dubious legality.
�The court recognizes that, by concluding that these definitions do not restrict the use of pen registers or trap-and-trace devices to communication facilities associated with individual users, it is finding that these definitions encompass an exceptionally broad form of collection,� wrote Kollar-Kotelly in an opinion whose date is redacted.

Pretty good illustration of the "chilling effect" affecting judges as much or maybe more than journalists. Give them an inch and they'll just take a mile.

Source.

# ? Nov 19, 2013 21:05

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Maddening thing about that release is that it was the result of a EFF FOIA lawsuit, not Obama's "commitment to transparency."

# ? Nov 20, 2013 16:35

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Aurubin posted:

Maddening thing about that release is that it was the result of a EFF FOIA lawsuit, not Obama's "commitment to transparency."

Is anyone still pretending this was more than an empty promise?

# ? Nov 20, 2013 19:57

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Orange Devil posted:

Is anyone still pretending this was more than an empty promise?

The ODNI?

# ? Nov 20, 2013 20:04

Fuckt Tupp: Apr 19, 2007; Science

Orange Devil posted:

Is anyone still pretending this was more than an empty promise?

It's just illustrating how much power Obama has over these agencies. Anything the president, congress or any judge says is simply taken as a suggestion.

# ? Nov 20, 2013 20:06

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Inch, mile, and all that:

US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
� 2007 deal allows NSA to store previously restricted material
� UK citizens not suspected of wrongdoing caught up in dragnet
� Separate draft memo proposes US spying on 'Five-Eyes' allies

# ? Nov 20, 2013 21:03

Spergin Morlock: Aug 8, 2009; Fun Shoe

Internet Webguy posted:

It's just illustrating how much power Obama has over these agencies. Anything the president, congress or any judge says is simply taken as a suggestion.

That's actually one of the biggest aspects of a president's power. In addition to signing bills or executive orders and whatnot, they also set the "tone" of the administration and it carries down into the lower levels of government even in places where he's not directly influencing decisions or making them outright.

# ? Nov 21, 2013 03:47

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Truth be told, I was really surprised this passed:

UN surveillance resolution goes ahead despite attempts to dilute language

Wonder if this speaks to how little power the UN has though, since something will actually get to the floor.

# ? Nov 22, 2013 00:16

truther: Oct 22, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT THE BEARS

Aurubin posted:

Inch, mile, and all that:

US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data
� 2007 deal allows NSA to store previously restricted material
� UK citizens not suspected of wrongdoing caught up in dragnet
� Separate draft memo proposes US spying on 'Five-Eyes' allies

NZ's PM after telling the Nation he's sure the NSA doesn't spy on NZ because 'why would they bother' has now changed his tone to 'I don't and won't ever comment on intelligence information.'

I find it hard to understand why any leader would be ok with a foreign country, especially an ally, spying on their country.

# ? Nov 22, 2013 01:07

GrizzlyCow: May 30, 2011

Maybe they feel they can't do anything about it. America is still a rather powerful country. Or maybe they drunk the same kool-aid the rest of the world leaders have about Terrorism. Maybe they just don't give a poo poo.

# ? Nov 22, 2013 01:23

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

I would assume it's some combination of "nothing to hide" and "political realities."

# ? Nov 22, 2013 01:28

truther: Oct 22, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT THE BEARS

Either way the Opposition parties are lapping it up (:

# ? Nov 22, 2013 02:37

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

One of the early headlines was that surveillance could practically "see your thoughts form as you typed". Interesting article on how even something as minor as the way you type and use the mouse can uniquely identify you.

quote:

Researchers have built a continuous authentication platform that can accurately identify users based on their typing patterns.

A series of 90 minute typing tests carried out on 2000 people at Iowa State University found users could be identified with a half percent margin of error based on the way they hit keys.

The work has been spun into an application that could continuously authenticate users and lock accounts if another person jumped on the computer resulting in irregularities being detected. (pdf)

Uniquely syncopated mouse and keyboard patterns made it possible to identify users, Iowa State University associate professor Morris Chang said.

�These pauses between words, searches for unusual characters and spellings of unfamiliar words, all have to do with our past experiences, our learning experiences,� Chang said. �And so we call them cognitive fingerprints which manifest themselves in typing rhythms.�

�The system can see if the same person or an imposter is coming in to hijack the computer."

The year-long research run together with electrical engineering students Terry Fang, Kuan-Hsing Ho and Danny Shih received a half a million dollar grant from the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency which sought to discover if continuous authentication was possible.

It was now being extended to capture mouse movements and touch inputs from mobile devices with an additional $1.76 million dollars from the agency over two years.

http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/365221,users-ided-through-typing-mouse-movements.aspx

# ? Nov 22, 2013 19:00

Fuckt Tupp: Apr 19, 2007; Science

In early September, the FISA court released this statement:

FISA statement posted:

In view of these circumstances, and as an exercise of discretion, the Court has determined that it is appropriate to take steps toward publication of any Section 215 Opinions that are not subject to the ongoing FOIA litigation, without reaching the merits of the asserted right of public access under the First Amendment.

Now:

FISA statement posted:

After careful review of the Opinion by senior intelligence officials and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Executive Branch has determined that the Opinion should be withheld in full and a public version of the Opinion cannot be provided.

Nothing to see here, people. Move along.

Source with links to both of the quoted documents.

# ? Nov 22, 2013 22:18

Sancho: Jul 18, 2003

The more that gets released/leaked, the more likely the whole program will be fundamentally changed. I can at least count on Edward Snowden to release the relevant documents where the US government is unwilling.

# ? Nov 22, 2013 22:30

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Renesys reports that large-scale MITM attacks are now a reality. Not even just from the NSA. HTTP/2 with mandatory end-to-end encryption is sounding better and better all the time.

Someone's done a good analysis of the QUANTUM packet injection system, recommended by Bruce Schneier.

One of the most basic yet most versatile exploits:

quote:

So for any webmail service that doesn�t require HTTPS encryption, QUANTUMCOOKIE also allows the wiretap to log in as the target and read the target�s mail. QUANTUMCOOKIE could also tag users, as the same redirection that extracts a cookie could also set or modify a cookie, enabling the NSA to actively track users of interest as they move across the network � although there is no indication yet that the NSA utilizes this technique.

In hilariously petty news, the NSA is suing to stop production of t-shirts that mock them.

quote:

he U.S. National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security have threatened legal action to block the sale of T-shirts that ridicule these two powerful government agencies. But the T-shirt designer says NSA and DHS are the ones breaking the law by assaulting free speech, a pillar of democratic society.

A judge may decide who is right.

One T-shirt calls the NSA the �only part of the government that actually listens,� a joke that plays on the NSA�s controversial, and critics say overzealous, monitoring of communications worldwide. Americans tend to laugh out loud when they see the message.

Another shirt parodies the DHS logo, rewritten as the �Department of Homeland Stupidity.�

Agency officials have sent stern letters to the printer who makes and distributes these designs, demanding an immediate halt, according to T-shirt designer Dan McCall. He says the letters cite federal laws banning unauthorized use or defacement of official logos.

http://www.voanews.com/content/nsa-squabbles-with-t-shirt-maker-over-free-speech/1790549.html

Good thing too, I was getting tired of reading those lame Federal Body Inspector t-shirts, which will certainly be next on the priority list, right?

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Nov 23, 2013

# ? Nov 22, 2013 22:51

Sucrose: Dec 9, 2009

truther posted:

NZ's PM after telling the Nation he's sure the NSA doesn't spy on NZ because 'why would they bother' has now changed his tone to 'I don't and won't ever comment on intelligence information.'

I find it hard to understand why any leader would be ok with a foreign country, especially an ally, spying on their country.

Quid Pro Quo. You think these intelligence agencies give a poo poo about the privacy of their peasants? Probably just one more thing to be traded for other info. Now, if the leaders themselves are being spied on, expect them to be pissed off.

# ? Nov 23, 2013 01:00

Sancho: Jul 18, 2003

Paul MaudDib posted:

Renesys reports that large-scale MITM attacks are now a reality. Not even just from the NSA. HTTP/2 with mandatory end-to-end encryption is sounding better and better all the time.

Someone's done a good analysis of the QUANTUM packet injection system, recommended by Bruce Schneier.

One of the most basic yet most versatile exploits:

In hilariously petty news, the NSA is suing to stop production of t-shirts that mock them.

http://www.voanews.com/content/nsa-squabbles-with-t-shirt-maker-over-free-speech/1790549.html

Good thing too, I was getting tired of reading those lame Federal Body Inspector t-shirts, which will certainly be next on the priority list, right?

I think they're used to getting companies to fall in line by bluffing them with stern letters. They're not used to going to real court, just secret court.

# ? Nov 23, 2013 15:37

Kobayashi: Aug 13, 2004; by Nyc_Tattoo

New from Greenwald et al:

Huffington Post posted:

Top-Secret Document Reveals NSA Spied On Porn Habits As Part Of Plan To Discredit 'Radicalizers'

WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency has been gathering records of online sexual activity and evidence of visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through incendiary speeches, according to a top-secret NSA document. The document, provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, identifies six targets, all Muslims, as �exemplars� of how �personal vulnerabilities� can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target's credibility, reputation and authority.

The NSA document, dated Oct. 3, 2012, repeatedly refers to the power of charges of hypocrisy to undermine such a messenger. �A previous SIGINT" -- or signals intelligence, the interception of communications -- "assessment report on radicalization indicated that radicalizers appear to be particularly vulnerable in the area of authority when their private and public behaviors are not consistent,� the document argues.

Among the vulnerabilities listed by the NSA that can be effectively exploited are �viewing sexually explicit material online� and �using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls.�

The Director of the National Security Agency -- described as "DIRNSA" -- is listed as the "originator" of the document. Beyond the NSA itself, the listed recipients include officials with the Departments of Justice and Commerce and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

"Without discussing specific individuals, it should not be surprising that the US Government uses all of the lawful tools at our disposal to impede the efforts of valid terrorist targets who seek to harm the nation and radicalize others to violence," Shawn Turner, director of public affairs for National Intelligence, told The Huffington Post in an email Tuesday.

Yet Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said these revelations give rise to serious concerns about abuse. "It's important to remember that the NSA�s surveillance activities are anything but narrowly focused -- the agency is collecting massive amounts of sensitive information about virtually everyone," he said.

"Wherever you are, the NSA's databases store information about your political views, your medical history, your intimate relationships and your activities online," he added. "The NSA says this personal information won't be abused, but these documents show that the NSA probably defines 'abuse' very narrowly."

None of the six individuals targeted by the NSA is accused in the document of being involved in terror plots. The agency believes they all currently reside outside the United States. It identifies one of them, however, as a "U.S. person," which means he is either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. A U.S. person is entitled to greater legal protections against NSA surveillance than foreigners are.

Stewart Baker, a one-time general counsel for the NSA and a top Homeland Security official in the Bush administration, said that the idea of using potentially embarrassing information to undermine targets is a sound one. "If people are engaged in trying to recruit folks to kill Americans and we can discredit them, we ought to," said Baker. "On the whole, it's fairer and maybe more humane" than bombing a target, he said, describing the tactic as "dropping the truth on them."

Any system can be abused, Baker allowed, but he said fears of the policy drifting to domestic political opponents don't justify rejecting it. "On that ground you could question almost any tactic we use in a war, and at some point you have to say we're counting on our officials to know the difference," he said.

In addition to analyzing the content of their internet activities, the NSA also examined the targets' contact lists. The NSA accuses two of the targets of promoting al Qaeda propaganda, but states that surveillance of the three English-speakers� communications revealed that they have "minimal terrorist contacts."

In particular, �only seven (1 percent) of the contacts in the study of the three English-speaking radicalizers were characterized in SIGINT as affiliated with an extremist group or a Pakistani militant group. An earlier communications profile of [one of the targets] reveals that 3 of the 213 distinct individuals he was in contact with between 4 August and 2 November 2010 were known or suspected of being associated with terrorism," the document reads.

The document contends that the three Arabic-speaking targets have more contacts with affiliates of extremist groups, but does not suggest they themselves are involved in any terror plots.

Instead, the NSA believes the targeted individuals radicalize people through the expression of controversial ideas via YouTube, Facebook and other social media websites. Their audience, both English and Arabic speakers, "includes individuals who do not yet hold extremist views but who are susceptible to the extremist message,� the document states. The NSA says the speeches and writings of the six individuals resonate most in countries including the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Kenya, Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia.

The NSA possesses embarrassing sexually explicit information about at least two of the targets by virtue of electronic surveillance of their online activity. The report states that some of the data was gleaned through FBI surveillance programs carried out under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act. The document adds, "Information herein is based largely on Sunni extremist communications." It further states that "the SIGINT information is from primary sources with direct access and is generally considered reliable."

According to the document, the NSA believes that exploiting electronic surveillance to publicly reveal online sexual activities can make it harder for these �radicalizers� to maintain their credibility. "Focusing on access reveals potential vulnerabilities that could be even more effectively exploited when used in combination with vulnerabilities of character or credibility, or both, of the message in order to shape the perception of the messenger as well as that of his followers," the document argues.

An attached appendix lists the "argument" each surveillance target has made that the NSA says constitutes radicalism, as well the personal "vulnerabilities" the agency believes would leave the targets "open to credibility challenges" if exposed.

One target's offending argument is that "Non-Muslims are a threat to Islam," and a vulnerability listed against him is "online promiscuity." Another target, a foreign citizen the NSA describes as a "respected academic," holds the offending view that "offensive jihad is justified," and his vulnerabilities are listed as "online promiscuity" and "publishes articles without checking facts." A third targeted radical is described as a "well-known media celebrity" based in the Middle East who argues that "the U.S perpetrated the 9/11 attack." Under vulnerabilities, he is said to lead "a glamorous lifestyle." A fourth target, who argues that "the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself" is said to be vulnerable to accusations of �deceitful use of funds." The document expresses the hope that revealing damaging information about the individuals could undermine their perceived "devotion to the jihadist cause."

The Huffington Post is withholding the names and locations of the six targeted individuals; the allegations made by the NSA about their online activities in this document cannot be verified.

The document does not indicate whether the NSA carried out its plan to discredit these six individuals, either by communicating with them privately about the acquired information or leaking it publicly. There is also no discussion in the document of any legal or ethical constraints on exploiting electronic surveillance in this manner.

While Baker and others support using surveillance to tarnish the reputation of people the NSA considers "radicalizers," U.S. officials have in the past used similar tactics against civil rights leaders, labor movement activists and others.

Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI harassed activists and compiled secret files on political leaders, most notably Martin Luther King, Jr. The extent of the FBI's surveillance of political figures is still being revealed to this day, as the bureau releases the long dossiers it compiled on certain people in response to Freedom of Information Act requests following their deaths. The information collected by the FBI often centered on sex -- homosexuality was an ongoing obsession on Hoover's watch -- and information about extramarital affairs was reportedly used to blackmail politicians into fulfilling the bureau's needs.

Current FBI Director James Comey recently ordered new FBI agents to visit the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington to understand "the dangers in becoming untethered to oversight and accountability."

James Bamford, a journalist who has been covering the NSA since the early 1980s, said the use of surveillance to exploit embarrassing private behavior is precisely what led to past U.S. surveillance scandals. "The NSA's operation is eerily similar to the FBI's operations under J. Edgar Hoover in the 1960s where the bureau used wiretapping to discover vulnerabilities, such as sexual activity, to 'neutralize' their targets," he said. "Back then, the idea was developed by the longest serving FBI chief in U.S. history, today it was suggested by the longest serving NSA chief in U.S. history."

That controversy, Bamford said, also involved the NSA. "And back then, the NSA was also used to do the eavesdropping on King and others through its Operation Minaret. A later review declared the NSA�s program 'disreputable if not outright illegal,'" he said.

Baker said that until there is evidence the tactic is being abused, the NSA should be trusted to use its discretion. "The abuses that involved Martin Luther King occurred before Edward Snowden was born," he said. "I think we can describe them as historical rather than current scandals. Before I say, 'Yeah, we've gotta worry about that,' I'd like to see evidence of that happening, or is even contemplated today, and I don't see it."

Jaffer, however, warned that the lessons of history ought to compel serious concern that a "president will ask the NSA to use the fruits of surveillance to discredit a political opponent, journalist or human rights activist."

"The NSA has used its power that way in the past and it would be na�ve to think it couldn't use its power that way in the future," he said.

So to recap: We have a program of "de-legitimization" of "radicalizers," based solely on their speech. The program is being discussed outside the NSA, with the DOJ and the DEA. None of the targets are "involved in terror plots." The NSA also analyzed the social graph of the targets and found... nothing particularly interesting. The program appears to operate in conjunction with the FBI, much like the way the NSA partners with GCHQ to get around its own limitations.

The language that has landed these people under the NSA microscope is what scares me the most. I know Snowden's documents only tell part of the story, but it doesn't seem like they're accused of saying anything much more radical than what you'd find here in D&D. The idea that by idly stating I think the NSA is ushering in an Orwellian state could lead the NSA to start compiling a dossier on my porn habits is terrifying. The moral of the story seems to be: Don't have a funny sounding name and anti-American opinions.

Burn the NSA to the ground, salt the remains.

# ? Nov 27, 2013 08:32

Sancho: Jul 18, 2003

It's ok tho it's more humane than outright imprisoning/killing them so we should do it. I wonder if intel guys really are brainwashed into thinking they're American heroes or something.

# ? Nov 27, 2013 14:29

i am harry: Oct 14, 2003

Kobayashi posted:

Burn the NSA to the ground, salt the remains.

We also have these sort of surveillance systems being sold. As I look out of the door-window of my second floor apartment into one of the many parking lots of this lovely "gated community" I cannot help but envision a time in the not to distant future when places like this become "gated corporate compounds" with their own behavior rules, security force, and the occasional knock on the door or email from the office that my online movements or expressed thoughts are a concern as they do not fit in line with encouraged group-think of the neighborhood.
Is that an unreasonable vision?

# ? Nov 27, 2013 14:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 09:33

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Sancho posted:

It's ok tho it's more humane than outright imprisoning/killing them so we should do it. I wonder if intel guys really are brainwashed into thinking they're American heroes or something.

They don't need to be brainwashed - most of them genuinely thought they were from the beginning. They think they're providing security for the nation and they'll happily trade (other people's) liberty for that security.

# ? Nov 27, 2013 16:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)

«‹›85 »