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)

«‹›3 »

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Until the advent of the computer era and the Internet, surveillance was, by the standards of government, a relatively costly endeavor. Tapping phone lines required the redirection of individual lines, paper documents had to be intercepted physically, and storage was always at a premium. States that had the capability to monitor all electronic communication, like Gaddafi era Libya, were seen as the aberration. Not anymore. Today virtually all technologically capable nations, not simply those seen as �oppressive�, operate sweeping monitoring programs. The ease of digital storage, as well as the centralization of electronic communication via fiber optic sea cables, has drastically reduced the barriers to pervasive surveillance. The justifications for programs like these are usually to prevent criminal or terroristic events, but can just as easily be turned against the populace as a means of control.

At the same time, the advent of the Internet and the speed at which information can be disseminated has lead to an era where forced transparency and the want for secrecy readily clash. Back room discussions leak with increasing frequency and completeness, often tainting the official narrative, for better or worse. Compromise, if it occurs at all, must be done in the open. That is infinitely harder. To quote United States Secretary of State John Kerry, �The Internet makes it hard to govern.� The fact that relatively low level analysts like Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning and Edward Snowden can walk off with entire archives of classified data is rightly terrifying for the state, not merely for reasons of maintaining control, but because the fruits of diplomacy are predicated on the construction of an artificial narrative, something that blunt intelligence reports always lack. That dissonance is at the heart of society, and radical transparency is simply something new. At the same time, the capability for mass surveillance is as well. The dueling of these two ideas is one of the key issues at this point in human history.

This is a thread for the discussion of the events and ideas surrounding the spectre of mass surveillance in today�s era. We live in a time where the Internet has peeled back the curtain on everyone, pleb and patrician alike. This has caused a radical restructuring of how we deal with events, from things like the Arab Spring, the Chinese Great Firewall, and PRISM. How we deal with things like this deserves debate.

2013 Mass Surveillance Disclosures

On June 6th of this year, the Guardian newspaper along with The Washington Post presented evidence that the United States was collecting the phone metadata from all Verizon customers. Along with this was evidence of an internet monitoring program, PRISM, in which the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) were hooked into the systems of major email and software providers such as Google and Microsoft. The sheer scale of the intake, as well as the lack of filtration, was what raised alarm. The man who leaked these programs, Edward Snowden, came forward on the 14th of June. Since then disclosures about the nature of the espionage by the US and it�s allies has been in the media almost weekly. His reasoning for disclosing these programs was to spark a debate about the changing nature of surveillance, especially when they are divorced from the democratic process.

Resources
Wikipedia article about mass surveillance by country-> The included legal and moral rationals are worth discussing
Wikipedia summary of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures-> Very detailed, excellently collated
Timeline of NSA surveillance disclosures and surrounding legal matters by the Electronic Frontier Foundation-> All the way back to 1791!
Summary of disclosures and articles related to the topic by The Guardian
All New York Times articles collated by their relation to the NSA

World Reactions, using Photography!

Brazil

Germany

THIS IS MY PROTEST GRIMACE

United States

United Kingdom

# ¿ Oct 11, 2013 00:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:04

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

WHAT THIS THREAD IS

A debate about the changing nature of surveillance and what that means for privacy and freedom in the 21st century.

A discussion about disclosures and debates as the occur, with new stories to be linked in this post, because I'm spergy.

~~A place to tell everyone to vote for Rand Paul in 2016.~~

WHAT THIS THREAD IS NOT

A place for personal attacks based on ideology. Phrases like "bootlick" and "FBI informant" come to mind.

A place to shout "IT'S LEGAL!" or "EVERYONE SPIES GET OVER IT." and then wander away. Legality and tradition are not necessarily the issue here, it's the intercession between morality and what is done.
(this space reserved for stories as the occur)
10/10/2013-Sensenbrenner introduces his own bill to curb NSA spying, calls for indictment of Clapper
10/10/2013-Report about the tightening of press freedoms in the US under Obama
10/10/2013-Nick Clegg apparently trying to get review of spying powers
10/10/2013-The CIA felt Snowden was a security risk in 2009
10/11/2013-NSA veterans feel that the White House is not defending them vigorously enough

Aurubin fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Oct 11, 2013

# ¿ Oct 11, 2013 00:29

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Fojar38 posted:

It's hiding its actions because that is precisely what it is supposed to do. Hide it's actions, be discreet, and do stuff in the background that almost nobody is aware of. That is the entire point of intelligence. Transparency defeats the entire point of it existing. I agree that there should be oversight, but people on this forum seem to interpret "oversight" as "Everyone should be able to see what they're doing and judge them accordingly." They may as well not even exist then. At some point people are going to have to acknowledge that there are things that they shouldn't know and that the world is a better place because they don't know them.

And I find US Hegemony preferable because the alternatives are all several magnitudes worse. I don't really get all that upset about the US doing unethical things because at the very least the core ideology of the Americans and a world that is dominated by the United States is one that I can live in and be happy. I can't say the same for most other nations that have challenged the US in the past. I guess you could say that I think that even if the US does bad things for the sake of it's interests, I consider that to be for the greater good. Usually.

Just because I interpret things differently from you doesn't make me ignorant. I think that this forum and many people in this thread have a serious perspective problem and don't realize just how good they have it as a result of US dominance in world affairs.

This is getting sidetracked though. Snowden and Greenwald and whatnot were purportedly doing what they were doing for the sake of civil liberties in the US and abroad. Leaking details regarding US intelligence operations in Europe and elsewhere goes beyond that mandate as such intelligence operations are a key part of international affairs and the current international order. If these leaks are even coming from them. It's possible that they aren't and "dismantling the Anglo-American Capitalist hegemony!" is something that publications such as Der Spiegel and D&D posters are thrusting upon them because they have an axe to grind against the establishment.

In truth broader discussions about the nature of spying by nation states is precisely why I recreated the thread. To the argument about the beneficial nature of American hegemony, I suggest this (rather long) piece in Foreign Affairs. I think it sums up well why things like this are actually a problem.

Since I'm all aflutter that my creation was given second life, here's a couple of articles that haven't yet been discussed to kill this thread off again:

The European Parliament adopted a (conveniently) nonbinding resolution to suspend the SWIFT agreement with the United States. 10/23/2013

A paper by a Georgetown law professor on the legality and constitutionality of bulk metadata collection. I haven't read it, but stuff hosted on justsecurity is usually good.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2013 09:12

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Huh, if this is taken at face value, I guess Japan is one of the few countries who didn't go along with mass surveillance. No idea if this just means the US did it themselves and the Diet looked the other way, however.

quote:

NSA asked Japan to tap regionwide fiber-optic cables in 2011

The U.S. National Security Agency sought the Japanese government�s cooperation in 2011 over wiretapping fiber-optic cables carrying phone and Internet data across the Asia-Pacific region, but the request was rejected, sources said Saturday.

The agency�s overture was apparently aimed at gathering information on China given that Japan is at the heart of optical cables that connect various parts of the region. But Tokyo turned down the proposal, citing legal restrictions and a shortage of personnel, the sources said.

The NSA asked Tokyo if it could intercept personal information from communication data passing through Japan via cables connecting it, China and other regional areas, including Internet activity and phone calls, they said.

Faced with China�s growing presence in the cyberworld and the need to bolster information about international terrorists, the United States may have been looking into whether Japan, its top regional ally, could offer help similar to that provided by Britain, according to the sources.

Based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, British newspaper The Guardian reported that the agency had been sharing data intercepted by Britain�s spy agency, GCHQ, through transatlantic cables since 2011.

But Tokyo decided it could not do so because under current legislation, it cannot intercept such communications even if the aim is to prevent a terrorist act. Japan also has a substantially smaller number of intelligence personnel, compared with the NSA�s estimated 30,000 employees, the sources said.

A separate source familiar with intelligence activities of major nations said the volume of data that would need to be intercepted from fiber-optic cables would require a massive number of workers and the assistance of the private sector.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 05:05

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Hey, something Feinstein isn't unconditionally defending, wow:

quote:

Feinstein: Senate intelligence panel in dark on surveillance of allies

The Senate Intelligence Committee was in the dark about National Security Agency surveillance of leaders of U.S. allies like Germany and France, panel chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a statement Monday.

"Unlike NSA�s collection of phone records under a court order, it is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed," she said. "Therefore our oversight needs to be strengthened and increased."

Feinstein also said she was "totally opposed" to such efforts and troubled that President Barack Obama apparently did not know about them until recently.

"I do not believe the United States should be collecting phone calls or emails of friendly presidents and prime ministers. The president should be required to approve any collection of this sort," she said. �It is my understanding that President Obama was not aware [German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel�s communications were being collected since 2002. That is a big problem."

Feinstein said the White House had informed her "that collection on our allies will not continue." However, she said her committee will conduct "a total review of all intelligence programs" in order to make sure panel members "are fully informed as to what is actually being carried out by the intelligence community."

Feinstein's statement listed France, Germany, Mexico and Spain as U.S. allies who should not have been subjected to surveillance and should not be in the future. She did not mention Brazil, whose president recently canceled a state visit to the U.S. in protest over reported NSA surveillance in that nation.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2013 22:54

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

I recommend this Guardian op-ed by the former US ambassador to Croatia during the Clinton years, it sums up my position on this succinctly. I was never outraged by the fact that US Intelligence services were monitoring, it was Keith Alexander's "Collect it All" paradigm that I thought was a profoundly bad investigative strategy.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2013 16:58

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

etalian posted:

I like this part with the typical Snowden character assassination

I think the administration is in a mess for another reason, maybe letting the intelligence complex grow without proper oversight or even worrying what would happen if all the secrets were brought to light?

Ha, my ideological blinders must be great because I don't remember reading that part. There was an extended Washington Post stor over the summer that investigated the metastasis of the intelligence community after 9/11 that was really telling. They interviewed an analyst who said how he was overwhelmed and everything was held together with string and hope while former NSA Director Dennis Blair was swimming through the piles of SIGINT Scrooge McDuck style.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2013 17:14

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

What was really funny about today's House Intel Committee hearing was Schiff arguing directly with Rogers about whether the members of the Committee were informed about the espionage on foreign leaders, Merkel in particular. Rogers said everyone knew, Schiff directly rebutted him in a protracted exchange. Rogers reclaimed his time from Schiff in response, which is Congressional code for "gently caress you".

EDIT: Leahy and Sensenbrenner introduced their bill yesterday on NSA reform, with a joint POLITICO op-ed. ACLU endorsed the bill. Scuttlebutt is that if Feinstein's bill went to the House it'd be DOA. Guess the Tea Party is good for something.

Aurubin fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Oct 29, 2013

# ¿ Oct 29, 2013 22:55

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Alexander denied that it was the NSA directly spying on European countries, saying they got the info from their European counterparts. Quite frankly, I believe Alexander, at least partially. I don't know where to parse out where he's obfuscating, but I believe the foundations of his side.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2013 01:09

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

etalian posted:

I'm sure the old ECHELON system is just gathering dust after the Cold War and the NSA would never abuse its brick&mortar presence in the Eurozone to get some intel.

The sneaky jounralists can't read powerpoint slides

Poor Alexander he puts so much effort into selling a certain talking point, only for it to get demolished by the next batch of leak articles.

Well eventually they have to run out of impartial docs to publish. Dunno what's left, but we'll see.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2013 02:59

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

I guess I skipped the part of yesterday's hearing where James Clapper felt it was necessary to rebut Jon Stewart.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2013 19:38

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Here's a neat thing by The Guardian trying to stress why this is important. Like the scroll based auto play, even if my Javascript senses are tingling.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 20:19

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

David Simon reaffirming his position on this issue. He's still talking about how minimization is a problem for any investigation. I don't think he's capable of separating SIGINT from a police investigation. A police investigation ends, intelligence gathering never ends. He makes a small statement at the end about how if they were to use it for repression it'd be bad. I really don't get how he can't make the leap that having the capability makes the possibility for use ever more likely. Also he doesn't like Greenwald.

Glenn's positions shine through, and that can be annoying, but I think I agree with with Greenwald in his takedown of the idea of impartial journalism. I don't really understand how muckraking became demonized, considering advocacy drives debate.

EDIT: It's especially weird considering the leadup to them talking about this issue is him talking about how anti-crime laws are generally a veil for civil control. What are the methods for controlling society, if not information? Weird perspective, in my opinion.

Aurubin fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Nov 2, 2013

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 01:35

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

^^^Was going to post this as well, but Greenwald is commenting that it is, again, from internal anonymous sources. At the same time, sounds like something that would happen, a nuke codes being 00000000000000 kind of thing.

In addition, I think these two articles, one in which the The Telegraph apes a government line about how the leaks could help pedophiles, and this Der Spiegel op-ed about how paranoia undermines democracy are relevant to the problems with mass surveillance.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2013 21:09

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Elotana posted:

http://pando.com/2013/11/27/keeping-secrets/

Mark Ames is mad at... something.

I saw this play out on Twitter over the last month. I guess people only see conspiracy where people do things differently than they would. Wikileaks keeps yelling at Glenn for redacting people's names, the reasons for which seem fairly obvious to me. Ames got his panties in a twist because Omidyar was involved with predatory microloans, but then NFSWCorp got bought by Peter Thiel, who co-founded Palanitr, and promptly shut up for awhile when Greenwald called him out on that. No clean hands I guess.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2013 01:45

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Kid Gloves posted:

...I have no idea why they'd continue to attack him about this.

According to one of the comments in that article Ames started hating Greenwald when he skewered an article that Ames did for The Nation for being untruthful, with the magazine eventually issuing an apology for publishing the article. At least that's according to comments on the internet.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2013 02:20

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Kid Gloves posted:

Yeah, they also had a cover story a few months ago ("Edward Snowden's Half-Baked Revolution") that tried to tear down Greenwald and Snowden. Here's a couple of quotes (this is by Ames btw):

I mean, really, if "hackery" is the best thing you can come up with re: Greenwald and his reporting on the Snowden leaks...

...Foust has spent most of his energy since June defending the NSA. He and Greenwald most certainly do not see eye to eye on this issue. I don't really get the twisted logic here. Koch funded conspiracy around every corner?

# ¿ Nov 29, 2013 03:00

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian, testified today before the Home Affairs Select Committee today, and Keith Vaz asked him, "Do you love this country?" While this is certainly one of the most sensational things said, having reviewed the transcript, there was little of substance asked or answered. In the previous iteration of this thread there was a lot of scoffing at the potential for McCarthyesque proceedings, but come on, this is straight out of the "Find the Commie" handbook.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 06:31

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Sudo Echo posted:

I can't help but notice that all the naysayers have stopped posting entirely at this point.

Might have simply lost interest, Occam's Razor and all that.

At the same time, I was wondering if they'd ever confirm Wyden's dogwhistling

It's all incidental, Jones didn't decide poo poo, blah blah blah all Stingray docs FOIA'd from the FBI are completely redacted.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 21:59

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Good bit of long form journalism detailing Greenwald and Snowden. They only talk to people on the anti-survelliance side however, so I'll admit a lack of balance. Then again, besides John Schindler and Stewart Baker spouting distilled jingoism, I doubt anyone would of given Rolling Stone anything more than talking points:

http://m.rollingstone.com/politics/news/snowden-and-greenwald-the-men-who-leaked-the-secrets-20131204

# ¿ Dec 5, 2013 17:03

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

While I saw this in multiple venues, I think this Forbes article succinctly points out the dissonance between the intelligence agencies and those who are agitated by them:

U.S. Spy Rocket Has Octopus-Themed 'Nothing Is Beyond Our Reach' Logo. Seriously.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2013 01:12

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

This is a great piece from the New Yorker if anyone is interested in the political personalities surrounding this debacle:

http://newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/16/131216fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

I'll suffer the Tea Party in Congress if it means the one drat thing passed next year is a veto proof bill banning bulk collection. I repeat that I think it's doubly dangerous; being an ineffective investigative technique and a great tool for repression. Those teo things compound one another. "We missed the terrorists! Give us more money to build ~~climate models~~ association maps to predict ~~the next attack~~ create a forecast map about the general pattern of terrorism throughout the world." It's all about the p-values. Too big. Smaller intervals, smaller standard deviations. Also, Al-Queda's leadership is not loving using phones. Wish the CIA was more than a institusionalized drug cartel, goddamn HUMINT.

This Guardian piece about tech lobbying too, since this is hurting their bottom line:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/nsa-surveillance-tech-companies-demand-sweeping-changes-to-us-laws

# ¿ Dec 9, 2013 06:49

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Xandu posted:

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/world/spies-dragnet-reaches-a-playing-field-of-elves-and-trolls.html?pagewanted=1&hp

This reminds me of an anecdote from an episode of Law and Order, wherein veterans of 60's/70's anti-war movement police infiltration units remarked how later on they learned how their groups were often choked with undercover cops, at times making up the majority.

Are they trying to connect the stereotype of video game players' anti-social behavior with susceptibility to jihadism? How does this work? "LFG for dungeon, must hate Israel."

# ¿ Dec 9, 2013 19:35

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

The sectarian divides of the Middle East:

Al-Qaeda affiliates: 1.6

Hezbollah: CS:GO

Hamas: Garry's Mod

# ¿ Dec 9, 2013 23:14

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

New Senate Judiciary hearing going on:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/nsa-chief-keith-alexander-senate-committee-live-updates

# ¿ Dec 11, 2013 20:23

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Because of course:

Verizon takes hard line on surveillance vote: activists

quote:

(Reuters) - Verizon Communications Inc told activist investors on Wednesday that it might skip a vote on a shareholder proposal that seeks details on the company's cooperation with government surveillance efforts.

Verizon's law firm Jones Day said in a November 25 letter that the company would exclude the measure from its 2014 proxy statement unless the activists did more to verify their eligibility to file the proposal.

The company's response appears to be more aggressive than the stance AT&T Inc took against a similar proposal, said Jonas Kron, senior vice president for Trillium Asset Management, a co-filer of the measures at both telecommunications companies.

Kron said Trillium has provided more detail, but that Verizon's action suggests it will sidestep the usual process in which companies ask the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for permission to skip votes on shareholder proposals.

"If they are going to challenge the shareholder proposal, I hope they will work within the SEC process," Kron said.

Verizon spokesman Bob Varettoni said the company's response was routine.

"At this point, we have not taken any formal position on the proposal," he wrote. "The SEC requires shareholders to demonstrate their eligibility to submit a proposal. We've simply sought the information that we believe is necessary to determine the proponent's eligibility."

A spokesman for the SEC declined to comment.

PREPARING FOR SPRING

The dispute at Verizon is just one of many playing out this month ahead of the spring when shareholder meetings usually take place. Generally, corporate shareholders who own $2,000 worth of stock for a year may file proposals for a vote by all investors.

But the rise of proposals with a social agenda or those put forth by labor groups has prompted many companies to push back, often by seeking SEC permission to skip the measures. The agency grants such permission about half the time.

To back up their requests, companies typically argue that shareholders are putting forth ideas that should be treated as "ordinary business" rather than subject to a shareholder vote, or that, if passed, their proposals could hamper other company operations. AT&T made both of those arguments earlier this month and Verizon could seek SEC permission.

Both AT&T and Verizon shareholders, including Trillium and New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who oversees the state's pension fund, had filed measures calling for details of their cooperation with U.S. and foreign spy agencies.

In the wake of revelations by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, the shareholders cited media reports of intelligence agencies' involvement with the companies and criticism from foreign leaders.

The activists asked both companies to schedule votes on a measure calling for the publication of semi-annual reports with details such as how often customer information was shared with government agencies.

In the November 25 letter, Verizon's attorney at Jones Day told Trillum's Kron the company intended to exclude the surveillance proposal from its proxy filing unless it corrected what it called "procedural deficiencies."

Among other things, the firm wrote that material Trillium submitted had not demonstrated an investor was a shareholder entitled to vote the shares. Trillium responded to Verizon on December 9 with additional material, but said the firm did not concede the extra proof was necessary.

(Reporting by Ross Kerber in Boston. Additional reporting by Sinead Carew in New York; Editing by Linda Stern, Leslie Gevirtz and Andre Grenon)

# ¿ Dec 12, 2013 16:47

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Apparently tonight's 60 Minutes report on the NSA was rather biased, at least if the fights on my twitter feed are any indication. I try to subscribe to all sides of an argument so as to not be speaking into an echo chamber. Place went downhill since Rooney died.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 03:16

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Considering this is the same Home Affairs Committee that asked Alan Rusbridger if he loved his country, the questions asked in this hearing were more penetrating than I expected. Or Keith Vaz is Labour and Theresa May is a Tory, who knows.

quote:

MPs grill Theresa May over spy chiefs' 'melodramatic soundbites' on NSA files
Home affairs committee asks home secretary whether she has been given proof by MI5 and MI6 to support their rhetoric

The home secretary, Theresa May, faced criticism from MPs on Monday for failing to provide evidence to support the "melodramatic soundbites" of Britain's spy agencies claiming that revelations from the whistleblower Edward Snowden had damaged the UK's national security.

During a 45-minute grilling by the home affairs select committee, May was repeatedly asked whether she had evidence to back up "highly emotional statements" made by the heads of MI5, Andrew Parker, and MI6, Sir John Sawers. They have said stories published by the Guardian were a "gift for terrorists".

Keith Vaz, the committee chair, asked five times whether the home secretary had been given proof by the heads of the agencies to support their rhetoric. "These statements are made but no evidence is put forward. Do you have any evidence today," he asked.

May said she would not "sit here and talk about these things", but confirmed she had had discussions with MI5 and was "clear in my own mind" that the stories about the work of Britain's surveillance headquarters GCHQ had damaged national security.

She added: "I am appalled at the fact that leaked information is published which could put at risk the lives of men and women who themselves put their lives at risk for this country."

Vaz replied: "Being appalled is not evidence."

When asked about the specific claims of the agency chiefs that Britain's enemies were "rubbing their hands with glee", May said: "I don't tend to use phrases like that."

Vaz said his committee was unanimous in believing that Parker should appear before them as they prepare a report on Britain's counter-terrorism strategy. The committee's invitation for Parker and the national security advisor, Sir Kim Darroch, to address them was blocked by May and the prime minister last week.

Two weeks ago the editor-in-chief of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, appeared before the MPs and defended the publication of stories based on the files leaked by Snowden. He said he could not "think of a story in recent times that has ricocheted around the world like this has and which has been more broadly debated in parliaments, in courts and amongst NGOs".

Rusbridger argued that news organisations that had published stories from the Snowden files had performed a public service, and highlighted the weakness of the scrutiny of agencies such as GCHQ and the NSA. "It's self-evident," he said. "If the president of the US calls a review of everything to do with this and that information only came to light via newspapers, then newspapers have done something oversight failed to do."

Rusbridger also quoted senior officials from the UK and the US who he said "have told me personally that there has been no damage. A member of the Senate intelligence committee said to us: 'I have been incredibly impressed by what you have done � I have seen nothing that you have done that has caused damage."

In front of the committee on Monday, May conceded that a debate had started, though she said discussions about the balance between security and surveillance were not new. She said: "It is right that in a democracy we should have an ongoing debate about these issues to make sure we get the balance right."

Michael Ellis, a Conservative member of the panel, asked May why the head of MI5 "feels able to make melodramatic soundbites � and his colleagues made soundbites to get across their points" without providing evidence.

May said the agency chiefs should report primarily to parliament's intelligence and security committee (ISC), which takes a lead on scrutiny of the agencies and has recently been given new powers.

Vaz told the home secretary: "What you have given us today, and what we have heard so far, is only second-hand information. Mr Parker and Sir John are making statements in open session and nobody knows what the follow-up is."

He said his committee could not give a fair and balanced report on counter-terrorism without direct access to the agency bosses. Though he did not criticise the ISC, he pointed out the committee's limitations. He said heads of the intelligence agencies were appointed by the prime minister, as was the head of the ISC, Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

"Everyone is appointed by the prime minister," said Vaz. "They are asking questions of each other, and giving answers to each other. That is the issue we have."

He added: "That is exactly why we need to see them [the agency heads]. But you don't want us to see them at all."

Over the last six months the Guardian has published a series of stories about the mass surveillance techniques of GCHQ and its US counterpart, the NSA. Two of the most significant programmes uncovered in the Snowden files were Prism, run by the NSA, and Tempora, which was set up by GCHQ. Between them, they allow the agencies to harvest, store and analyse data about millions of phone calls, emails and search-engine queries.

EDIT:

The Guardian's play by play as well:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/dec/16/nick-cleggs-monthly-press-conference-politics-live-blog

Aurubin fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Dec 16, 2013

# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 19:05

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

I sincerely doubt this would stand up before an appellate court, mostly because I think they are more captive to power than trial judges, but moral victories:

quote:

Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely to be unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the so-called metadata had helped to head off terrorist attacks.

Acting on a lawsuit brought by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Leon issued a preliminary injunction barring the NSA from collecting metadata pertaining to the Verizon accounts of Klayman and one of his clients. However, the judge stayed the order to allow for an appeal.

�Plaintiffs have a very significant expectation of privacy in an aggregated collection of their telephone metadata covering the last five years, and the NSA�s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program significantly intrudes on that expectation,� wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush. �I have significant doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.�

�I cannot imagine a more �indiscriminate� and �arbitrary invasion� than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,� Leon added.

Leon�s ruling is the first significant legal setback for the NSA�s surveillance program since it was disclosed in June in news stories based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The metadata program has been approved repeatedly by numerous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and at least one judge sitting in a criminal case.

Similar lawsuits challenging the program are pending in at least three other federal courts around the country.

Julian Sanchez posted the memorandum opinion:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf

# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 19:57

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Hahaha holy poo poo:

# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 20:15

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Joementum posted:

And the full report is here

Skimming through this, it seems more substantive than I was expecting as of my first impression. But of course, recommendations != policy.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2013 23:48

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

I guess Leon's ruling forced the DoJ's hand, wonder if the ruling will hold up to outside scrutiny:

quote:

Govt drops objection to publishing secret opinion

WASHINGTON (AP) � The Obama administration has dropped its objection to the publication of a secret court opinion on the law that authorizes the government's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records.

The Justice Department tells the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in a filing that the department won't object if the court decides to publish nonclassified portions of the its opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the court to release opinions on the meaning, scope and/or constitutionality of a legal provision under which the records are collected � Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

The government has located such an opinion, dated Feb. 19.

Friday's filing comes a few days after a federal judge ruled that the phone collection program is likely unconstitutional.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2013 02:08

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

B B posted:

Another ruling on NSA collection, but this one takes the other side:

Guessing this is going to end up with SCOTUS at some point in the near term?

He mentions 9/11 a bunch in his ruling. Sad that all you have to do is invoke that and people still jump.

EDIT:

Hell go back to 1920 and scream anarchists you get the same response. Then fascist, then commie, then terrorist. Worrying that the labels are getting even more generic, even when communist was distorted beyond recognition during the Cold War.

Aurubin fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Dec 27, 2013

# ¿ Dec 27, 2013 18:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:04

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Geoff Peterson posted:

The inclusion of "generally" above allows one to handwave away this millennium's Kyloo (evidence obtained via warrantless thermal imaging is inadmissable), Jones (Placement and monitoring of a GPS device on a vehicle constitutes a search) and Florida v Jardines (a drug dog sniffing the front door of a home is a search requiring warrant)-among others, limiting the options of the those with "power".

"Desires of power" is incredibly vague as well. I find it difficult to believe that the "desires of power" were reflected in both Shelby County (VRA) and NFIB (PPACA) for instance-unless "power" refers the white conservative power structure in the former and the Administration in the latter (but explicitly not in the former). And that says nothing of Fisher v UT-A (Affirmative Action) where I imagine the country would be split nearly in half regarding what the "desires of power" (the reverse discrimination goal of the liberal elite or the expectation of special treatment by the photogenic white girl) were in the case-each side regarding themselves as the oppressed underdog.

The sentiment-which I've seen here and elsewhere and do not mean to single you out for-appears to be the privacy advocate's equivalent of the conservative's "judicial activism" rallying cry- with all the attendant vacuousness.

Unless, I suppose, "Desires of Power" is intended to mean the accepted interpretations of legitimately passed legislation by a duly elected Congress, viewed through the prism of controlling precedent regarding constitutional matters. If that was your intent, then... yes?

I agree with the vagueness of the ACLU's argument. It was the same problem with Amnesty v. Clapper. But the court tried to hedge the fence by saying that DoJ had to inform defendants of warrantless wiretapping. They got around that through parallel construction, as the Reuters DEA article showed. The real problem, as it always has been, is reconciling Smith v. Maryland and Section 215. Virtually all communication is now handled through a third party. That renders the Fourth Amendment virtually useless in the digital age, but the only way to gain standing according to the Roberts court is if the government tells you you have standing. I imagined they chose to inform Mohamed Mohamud as his case doesn't exactly speak to government overreach. The problem is one of vague sentiment, I agree, but it's a sentiment I share.

At the same time, ubiquitous, continuing surveillance is generally seen as abhorrent in retrospective, if not in the present. It's why groups like the Stasi are reviled. To wit, France's legislature recently passed a resolution to allow real time internet monitoring without judicial review. The disconnect between cases like Jones and Smith is that communication, while protected on paper in the US, is harder to translate into concrete support like physical monitoring is. It's a lot harder to dissent when your every word is being potentially monitored. It's also hard to convince people of the necessity for dissent.

I really just don't understand how Smith and the FISC's interpretation of 215 stands up in the digital era without eradicating the Fourth Amendment as it applies to "papers and effects". But I'm a kook, as has been established. I'm also a biologist, not a lawyer, so there's that too.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2013 05:10

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

«‹›3 »