Lawyer-client comms being monitored
Watcher in the Middle makes points that few in government either side of the Atlantic and beyond want to see publicly in the foreground.
One issue that appeared in late 2013 in the UK and swiftly disappeared was whether interception of communications meant lawyer-client contact was being monitored, especially in 'high profile' cases - which may not involve terrorism:
Quote:
Lawyer-client communications are protected by legal professional privilege. The courts have made it clear that the confidentiality of such communications is a human right fundamental to the administration of justice.
Link:http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/...losed-hearings
The oversight body, the Investigative Powers Tribunal (IPT), one of several separate oversight bodies, last year came under the spotlight for holding proceedings in secret, minus the plaintiff, in a case where secrecy was not an issue. Background:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investi...owers_Tribunal
Regardless of this case, which with foreign and terrorism aspects may not resonate beyond the legal profession and the "usual suspects", makes one wonder what is being sacrificed for 'security'. Or in this case embarrassment for the state.
It's becomming an interesting battleground....
The Tech community knows that it is unlikely to 'win' it's fight against the NSA in a so-called frontal assault. Tried that with the vote in the US House and lost - barely. Course, a whole lot more information has come out since then.
However, since say, 2002, the Tech community has substantially built up their lobbying presence in DeeCee and elsewhere. Didn't want to, but had no choice.
Now, it's time to change the rules of the game. The tech community is coming to the realization that the NSA is not their friend. And what the NSA is doing is going directly against their business models, and that means losing business, and money.
The NSA certainly feels frustrated that they don't feel their 'message' of "benevolent spying", etc. is getting out. That's understandable, but their currently processes are directly negatively affecting entire sectors of the Tech community - and that's business.
So, the Tech community is starting to move this entire process into the lobbying environment, being that over the last 10 or so years they have built up this enormous presence in DeeCee. For example:
"So, you want to build a coalition on Immigration reform - it's called, what are you going to do for me? We've got issues too. So, let's talk."
"You want assistance on ACA? No problem. Oh, btw, we've got a 'little issue' we're somewhat concerned about. We'll talk later."
Potentially, every hot button issue the pols in either party put out there is going to become a lobbying point for the Tech community.
This is going to be the legislative equivalent of 'Chinese Water Torture' for the NSA.
This fight is a long way from over.
Skeletons popping out of US' closet - Part 1
The author of this piece is not JMM, but pmaitra, an Indian national, who is a moderator on Defense Forum India; who asked me to run it as a guest comment; and who presently is located somewhere in North Carolina.
Original DFI link.
Skeletons popping out of US' closet
Edward Snowden, the man who gave up his job, his family, and his partner, and ended up in Russia, has a lot of fans, and detractors. Some stand by him as a hero, while some call him a traitor. To each his own.
In this backdrop, one must look at what is going on in the US. This precis will present some facts, and some speculations, and will leave it up to the reader to pick a side.
On the 4th Amendment
The National Security Agency, or NSA, has been accused of "unreasonable search," and was declared probably unconstitutional by federal judge Richard J. Leon, who remarked, “Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.” Not surprisingly, another federal judge, William H. Pauley III, declared that, "While robust discussions are underway across the nation, in Congress, and at the White House, the question for this Court is whether the Government's bulk telephony metadata program is lawful. This Court finds it is."
So, which judge is correct? That, is the question.
Either we accept that there is a constant threat of terror attacks and NSA must be allowed to do what it has been doing, or accept that there is little evidence that NSA has helped prevent terror attacks and is actually used for industrial espionage, causing US companies to lose trust, and eventually, business.
On the 2nd Amendment
There has been a concerted effort to portray guns as the single biggest evil in the US today. CNN has also roped in a charming British journalist, Piers Morgan (pronounced: Pie's Mo'gan or "mow-gun" if you will) to champion the cause of the anti-gun lobby. While Piers Morgan has managed to garner much popularity, ended up being almost physically threatened by Alex Jones, he has also been accused on "standing on the graves of the Sandy Hook" victims by Ben Shapiro, a pro-gun activist.
So, what is this hullabaloo about? Should we limit guns? Are we going in the right direction? Looking at the recent unfortunate events, that seems so. However, historically, the US is going the opposite way.
The American independence came about as a result of non-conventional armed struggle between Americans and the regime forces of the British government, along with their American loyalists, and the success can be largely attributed to the balance of firepower that the two warring sides had - they both had muskets. Thus, when it came to writing the Constitutions, it was observed that it offered no protection from a tyrannical regime the freedom fighters had just defeated. "Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, 'What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.'" The story goes on, but let us look at the current scenario. If one were to ensure the same balance as the freedom fighters enjoyed against the then British regime, should the Americans not be allowed to own the very weapons the government has in its disposal? Yes, the ordinary citizens should be allowed to own rifles with standard magazines, including drum magazines, fully automatic assault rifles, sub-machine-guns, machine-guns, sniper and anti-materiel rifles, RPGs, Carl Gustav type RCLs, . . . , and anything that an individual can feasibly own and operate, and don't let this surprise you, it includes fighter jets as well.
To return to a realistic chime, one should consider the path shown by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Mandela, i.e., the path of non-violence as a tool against tyranny. The only problem with these great men's philosophy is the lack of the option to use violence. That is where one needs to rope in the philosophy of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. While non-violence should always be the first option, it would be unwise to exclude violence as an option.
On the 6th Amendment
Holding prisoners in a place that is not a war-zone and is under American control, and denying them trial, not telling them what the charges against them are, and not allowing them to see and know who their accuser should be unconstitutional. It has been argued, that it also violates the 5th Amendment and the 8th Amendment. Exception has been made, but concerns remain.
On the 1st Amendment
The US is generally a free country and allows everyone to express themselves freely. However, the recent prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza might suggest that the government will use any means it can to stifle any opposition to the government, and not let the Constitution come in the way of the larger scheme of things. This isn't the first time such concerns have been raised. The Internal Revenue Service has come under scrutiny on suspicions that it was being used by the government in politically motivated targeting of people.
Whistleblowers' character assassination
We have seen this with Julian Assange, as he was accused of sexual impropriety. Now, Edward Snowden is being, in a not so explicit way, shown as a possible Russian spy. Where is the evidence? "Well, it is classified," seems to be the only answer.
Why is the government offering plea bargains, when it is one of the parties accused of violation of the people's right? Will the government acquiesce to a referendum on whether Snowden should be given clemency? This seems to be the most logical way out.
A quasi-hijacking
US Ambassador to Austria, William Eacho, the brainchild behind this "hijacking," used all the finesses he could muster, by getting the Bolivian President's private jet to be denied entry in France, Spain, and Italy, and having it searched in Vienna, Austria. Austria, being a subservient spineless forgettable European country, could only bow down to the "master," do the bidding, in gross violation of International Law, as well as the basic decorum required in the comity of nations. According to an article in The Guardian, UK, "In revealing a vast Orwellian police state apparatus servicing history's greatest war-making machine, they illuminate the true extremism of the 21st century. Unprecedented, Germany's Der Spiegel has described the Obama administration as 'soft totalitarianism.' If the penny is falling, we might all look closer to home."
Marijuana, the new cool thing
Colorado and Washington (the state) have taken steps to gradually legalize, in a controlled fashion, marijuana use. Obama has gone on to equate that with drinking alcohol.
- to be cont. -
Skeletons popping out of US' closet - Part 2
The author of this piece is not JMM, but pmaitra, an Indian national ... etc.
Putting it all together
So, we have curbs on freedom of speech, curbs on right to a free, fair, and speedy trial, a neutering of the American people by taking away their guns, unreasonable and warrant-less search, and seizure without the possibility of habeas corpus petitions, and the willingness to take extreme steps, even if it means endangering the life of the president of another country, allowing the people easier access to intoxicating agents, hitherto legally and socially unacceptable.
The excellent speech by William Binney [Youtube link; JMM: Please spend 90 min and view this speech, which I've linked before] only demonstrates and accentuates the fear that the government, regardless of the party it claims to represent, will always do the bidding of the large corporations, and by extension, will go to war for these corporations, and will also violate the rights of its own citizens for these corporations.
It appears that the government is anticipating an uprising, and not wanting a "well regulated militia" rising up in arms against what it might perceive as a "tyrannical regime," the government wants to take away the guns, keep the young people busy with marijuana (the inebriate won't fight for a cause) and thus off the streets and from protesting, demonstrate the promise of retribution in the event of criticism of the government, and the resolve to hold people under detention indefinitely. The recent court judgments in favour of the government on issues where so many people have been skeptical about the government raises questions about the Judiciary. Is it really independent?
Famous and relevant quotes
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Emerich Edward Dalberg
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson
"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." - Gordon Hewart
----------------------------------------------
JMM: That's all, folks !
Regards
Mike
Snowden Doc Reveals How GCHQ/NSA Use The Internet To 'Manipulate, Deceive And Destroy
Quote:
A few weeks ago, Glenn Greenwald, while working with NBC News, revealed some details of a GCHQ presentation concerning how the surveillance organization had a "dirty tricks" group known as JTRIG -- the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group. Now, over at The Intercept, he's revealed the entire presentation and highlighted more details about how JTRIG would seek to infiltrate different groups online and destroy people's reputations -- going way, way, way beyond just targeting terrorist groups and threats to national security.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...utations.shtml
Why the agencies collect metadata
It is far more than traffic analysis. An interesting short article, the title is a clue 'How the NSA Can Use Metadata to Predict Your Personality'. There's a link to an academic paper, which IMHO appears to extrapolate from a small group of student subjects that prediction follows.
Link:http://www.defenseone.com/technology...0mbycY.twitter
Talking with an ex-NSA Director
Published on the first anniversary of Snowden's revelations (and defection IMHO) an exchange between ret'd General Michael Hayden, NSA Director 1999-2005 & CIA Director 2006-2009 and a UK-based critic and writer:http://www.opendemocracy.net/michael...th-general-mic
The article is to be part of a series:
Quote:
....this interview contributes to what we intend will become a growing, in depth exploration of the significance of surveillance for the future of humanity across the globe.
Judge for yourself the content, yes it is mainly about the USA, other appear, notably the UK. Just whether the bulk collection of metadata is useful is a moot point and what its general public impact has been debated here - on this thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=18297
The Snowden Operation: Assessing the Damage
Professor John Schindler offers an assessment:http://20committee.com/2014/07/15/th...ng-the-damage/
He ends with:
Quote:
NSA and U.S. intelligence won’t be getting past the damage wrought by Edward Snowden and his partners for many years, and neither will Western diplomacy and the many businesspeople who did nothing to deserve the loss of income they are now facing, and may be for a long time. It would be wise of senior U.S. Government officials to keep this in mind. Moreover, it’s best to face the painful truth now, because the full story of this debacle will come out eventually. It always does.
US Flying Blind To Looming Terror Plots
Growing Blind Spot
Quote:
Adding to the intelligence challenge is the fact that Al Qaeda’s resurgence has been fueled in large part by a new generation of Islamic extremists, many of them veterans of the Arab Spring uprisings, who are extremely sophisticated in their use of social media for propaganda, recruitment and especially communication. The Islamic State shock troops that captured nearly a third of Iraq in a matter of days used Twitter as a battlefield communication platform, for instance, in an offensive that resembled blitzkrieg by flash mob.
“You know, they all fly in a swarm. There’s no leader there. There’s nobody who says, ‘Yeah, we have a map and we have to go this way,’” Dutch intelligence chief Rob Bertholee recently told CBS News. “But, amazingly, they all go the same way.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/u...error-plots/4/
Understanding digital intelligence from a British perspective
Professor Sir David Omand has written a short commentary, it reflects his years as an "insider" and his studies since. He remains a stalwart defender of what GCHQ in particular has been doing:http://strifeblog.org/2015/02/05/und...h-perspective/
I note his emphasis that:
Quote:
The issue is how we the public can be sure that under any future government these tools cannot be misused.
Chertoff: everyone should have a right to encryption
A somewhat surprising report ex-DHS head says:
Quote:
I'm sympathetic to law enforcement, but nevertheless I've come to the conclusion that requiring network managers or ISPs to retain a key that would allow them to decrypt data moving back and forth on a particular device is not something the government should require....If you require companies to manage a network to retain a key to decrypt, I guarantee you another provider will allow someone else in the world to have that key. What happens is, honest people will have a key to encrypted data that's held by a third party. As we've seen in the past, that can lead to problems.
It's harder to crack encryption without the key—you have to go to the person who has the device and get them to give you the key somehow, but we don't normally, in a free society, require people to organize their lives in a way that makes life easier for law enforcement.... When they come to your house with a warrant, we don't give them a tour.
Link:http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/re...o-encrypt-data
Bulk collection: before the NSA came the DEA
Two reports on what some IIRC had suspected. From the most comprehensive USA today report, which starts with:
Quote:
The U.S. government started keeping secret records of Americans' international telephone calls nearly a decade before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, harvesting billions of calls in a program that provided a blueprint for the far broader National Security Agency surveillance that followed.For more than two decades, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking, current and former officials involved with the operation said. The targeted countries changed over time but included Canada, Mexico and most of Central and South America.
Link:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...tion/70808616/
The collection was halted, after over twenty years by Attorney-General Holder in September 2013:
Quote:
Officials said the Justice Department told the DEA that it had determined it could not continue both surveillance programs, particularly because part of its justification for sweeping NSA surveillance was that it served national security interests, not ordinary policing.
Short of time? A shorter report:http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/07/de...w-report-says/
Talking with the agencies
Yesterday, in the last post, I said:
Quote:
The debate in the UK on intelligence post-Snowden continues, although usually away from the media foreground....
Then today a tweet arrived from Duncan Campbell, an investigative journalist with a long history of exposing intelligence matters officialdom here would prefer not to be. He was invited to a conference @ Ditchley Park (a retreat for private discussions) on 'Intelligence, Security and Privacy' and has some unattributed comments.
Starting with:
Quote:
No-one argued against calls for greater openness...The purpose of the conference (the host said), was to explore "how can governments achieve the right balance between gathering enough information to keep their citizens safe, without those same citizens feeling that their privacy is being unreasonably invaded"
Link:http://www.duncancampbell.org/conten...n-not-required
A full report will be published soon by the Ditchley ParkFoundation, meantime The Intercept has a report and list of attendees:https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...-surveillance/
In Contempt of Bulk Surveillance: It’s Too Easy
An essay in Lawfare by a computer security SME; towards the end:
Quote:
We need to act like every open wireless network or hotel in the Washington area is potentially compromised. And with the low cost of such installation, it doesn’t even need to remain the realm of foreign intelligence services. How much money could criminals make with such systems?
At this point, it doesn’t matter if the NSA disappeared tomorrow. The precedents are now well established. After all, if the US can
target NATO allies with bulk surveillance and attack-by-name, who can’t do the same to us? And I personally believe the US has more to lose than we have to gain.
The only robust defense against Internet surveillance is universal encryption....
Link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/contempt...e-its-too-easy
Edward Snowden: Spies and the Law
Snowden has been interviewed in Moscow by the BBC's Peter Taylor for thirty minutes; the introduction says:
Quote:
Edward Snowden, the man responsible for the biggest leak of top secret intelligence files the world has ever seen, gives his first BBC interview to Panorama. Russia has given him sanctuary. America wants him back. With opinion sharply divided, Snowden is acknowledged to have raised the debate over privacy and national security to a new level - framing the agenda for this autumn's parliamentary debate over controversial new legislation previously criticised as 'the snoopers' charter'.
Alas the programme has been archived, it maybe on YouTube, but I have not looked.
Edward Snowden: Spies and the Law
The transcript of the interview has appeared and it has several passages of note:https://www.opendemocracy.net/digita...edward-snowden
Mass surveillance can't catch terrorists. That's the uncomfortable truth
This article by Professor Thomas Rid, Kings War Studies, is notable, even if some of the opening lines are based on the Paris attackers planner ebing in Syria, not France or was it Belguim?
A couple of key sentences:
Quote:
..bulk interception, our fallback method of getting some handle on encrypted communications in order to prevent attacks, may be failing. What some misleadingly call “mass surveillance,” may not nearly be as useful (or as scary) as both proponents and critics think.
(Later) The forward-looking and much harder discussion is about intelligence and law enforcement capabilities and methods that will actually work against the next generation of extremists.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-attacks.html
General Michael Hayden on Cybersurveillance in the Post-Snowden Age
General Hayden gave a speech recently, plus a Q&A (1hr video), which caused a few ripples on Twitter, possibly for this:
Quote:
Snowden stimulated and destroyed a necessary debate.
The conference summary refers to:
Quote:
During his address, General Hayden delivered an unapologetic defense of the NSA’s recently revealed activities, yet remained candid about where the agency has made mistakes and where it can improve. In particular, the speech raises a profound question: can intelligence activities succeed in a society that demands greater and greater transparency about those activities?
Link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-episode-108-general-michael-hayden-cybersurveillance-post-snowden-age?
His speech is 40 mins long and is available too as a podcast.
I have always found him forthright, almost entertaining, but found one example rather jarring. He compared the Cold War work of the NSA intercepting microwave communications within the USSR as it crossed the Urals to missile bases to monitoring all domestic phone traffic.
An intelligence "lurker" commented:
Quote:
I have never weighed Hayden up. He never sounds that smart
Today I found General Hayden has a book out, 'Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror', from Penguin Press and has a scathing review in The New Yorker:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...of-the-shadows
Amazon (USA) has several excellent to good review:http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Edge-A...+Age+of+Terror
Pardon Me, I’m Edward Snowden
The Fable of Edward Snowden
The Fable of Edward Snowden
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Intelligence post-Snowden: a debate
How Edward Snowden changed history
From The Economist a review of Edward Epstein's new book; it ends with:
Quote:
But certainly nobody reading this book will easily retain faith in the Hollywood fable of Mr Snowden’s bravery and brilliance.
Link:http://www.economist.com/news/books-...changedhistory