NSA Spying Relies on AT&T'S "Extreme Willingness to Help"
Nothing we didn't know or expect, just more confirmation/proof that AT&T & Verizon are all too eager to get on their knees for the NSA. https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts-extreme-willing... Also worth a look: how they connected the dots, supporting documents. https://www.propublica.org/article/a-trail-of-evidence-leading-to-atts-partn... (Apologies for not including the article text, I'm currently mobile.) -S
The NYT-Propublica is an informative and impressive release, in many ways better than previous. It expands on the earlier revelations (as the narratives state) with some overlap and filling in gaps. A good sign the holders of the balance of the Snowden dump are digging deeper and learning how convey a fuller picture or at least a more enthralling one for the public while techologists twiddle thumbs awaiting useful data to devise defenses. (A hint from some Snowden withholders there may be handoffs to technologists separate from the public. Schneier, Matthew Green, a few other comsec wizards aiding publishers have said as much.) Hardly complete to be sure, with about 10% of the dump published, with plenty of gaps indicated by jumps in narratives and still too many redactions -- presumably the result of consulting with officials as heretofore disclosed, or due to Snowen's instructions about what to withhold, either to "avoid national security harm" or in expectation US prosecutors might be mollified in the negotiations for his return to the US. Most frustratingly, details of the spying technology are missing with emphasis still on slide shows and textual summaries -- most likely to satisfy the public rather than technologists at home and national opponents. Jacob Appelbaum's and a few others releases of the technology are the exception, civil liberties and lawful issues remaining in the forefront of released documents and much more so for the journalistic accounts. It might be surmised that staying away from technology disclosures and featuring 5-Eyes and partners prowess and comprehensiveness of slides and text serves to warn the enemy of what's in store without disclosing information to defend against it. In particular, Snowden's and associates harping on the need for widespread, strong encryption use, even though the documents show how the spies bypass it, undermine it, use it for deception, implant backdoors in it (as well as in chips, OSes, routers, nodes, cable stations, server farms, teleco hubs, virtually everywhere in the global system as shown in this latest release) should be taken as a warning encryption is not the magic cape its proponents claim. This suggests reliance upon encryption may be a decoy to divert attention from other comsec protection, the old CryptoAG ploy: The most trusted comsec the most likely not. The tremendous rush to market cybersecurity means and methods for public consumption, combined with 5-Eyes outreach to industry for means and methods to defeat cybersecurity, is a wonderful paradox, albeit powerfully stenching with treachery. Whether Snowden is more of a hero to the public than to 5-Eyes and its partners is up for future historical debate. Say 25-30 years ahead, about the time required for full disclosure of the Snowden dump at the current rate of release (to the public, not clear which wizards getting early access are developing products, sales and industries to capitalize on cybersecurity alarm, some most assuredly are based on their inability to avoid bragging about being consulted by government, industry, NGOs,, vulture capitalists, and the usual speaker bureaus where wizards flog their skills.)
yay somehow USG 'legally' permits surveillance/search/seizure without a warrant of US persons if they are outside of the US - take a walk to canada and you loose your rights ... did people ever really have them? maybe before EO 12333 shit is fucked up and bullshit what do we think of this kind of cory doctorow work john? https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/introduction-to-cyber-security/4/registe... as some think security is a myth and actually letting everything be public is safer - does it have to be either or? On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:13 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
The NYT-Propublica is an informative and impressive release, in many ways better than previous. It expands on the earlier revelations (as the narratives state) with some overlap and filling in gaps. A good sign the holders of the balance of the Snowden dump are digging deeper and learning how convey a fuller picture or at least a more enthralling one for the public while techologists twiddle thumbs awaiting useful data to devise defenses. (A hint from some Snowden withholders there may be handoffs to technologists separate from the public. Schneier, Matthew Green, a few other comsec wizards aiding publishers have said as much.)
Hardly complete to be sure, with about 10% of the dump published, with plenty of gaps indicated by jumps in narratives and still too many redactions -- presumably the result of consulting with officials as heretofore disclosed, or due to Snowen's instructions about what to withhold, either to "avoid national security harm" or in expectation US prosecutors might be mollified in the negotiations for his return to the US.
Most frustratingly, details of the spying technology are missing with emphasis still on slide shows and textual summaries -- most likely to satisfy the public rather than technologists at home and national opponents.
Jacob Appelbaum's and a few others releases of the technology are the exception, civil liberties and lawful issues remaining in the forefront of released documents and much more so for the journalistic accounts.
It might be surmised that staying away from technology disclosures and featuring 5-Eyes and partners prowess and comprehensiveness of slides and text serves to warn the enemy of what's in store without disclosing information to defend against it.
In particular, Snowden's and associates harping on the need for widespread, strong encryption use, even though the documents show how the spies bypass it, undermine it, use it for deception, implant backdoors in it (as well as in chips, OSes, routers, nodes, cable stations, server farms, teleco hubs, virtually everywhere in the global system as shown in this latest release) should be taken as a warning encryption is not the magic cape its proponents claim.
This suggests reliance upon encryption may be a decoy to divert attention from other comsec protection, the old CryptoAG ploy: The most trusted comsec the most likely not.
The tremendous rush to market cybersecurity means and methods for public consumption, combined with 5-Eyes outreach to industry for means and methods to defeat cybersecurity, is a wonderful paradox, albeit powerfully stenching with treachery.
Whether Snowden is more of a hero to the public than to 5-Eyes and its partners is up for future historical debate. Say 25-30 years ahead, about the time required for full disclosure of the Snowden dump at the current rate of release (to the public, not clear which wizards getting early access are developing products, sales and industries to capitalize on cybersecurity alarm, some most assuredly are based on their inability to avoid bragging about being consulted by government, industry, NGOs,, vulture capitalists, and the usual speaker bureaus where wizards flog their skills.)
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/16/2015 03:13 PM, John Young wrote: [ ... ]
It might be surmised that staying away from technology disclosures and featuring 5-Eyes and partners prowess and comprehensiveness of slides and text serves to warn the enemy of what's in store without disclosing information to defend against it.
In particular, Snowden's and associates harping on the need for widespread, strong encryption use, even though the documents show how the spies bypass it, undermine it, use it for deception, implant backdoors in it (as well as in chips, OSes, routers, nodes, cable stations, server farms, teleco hubs, virtually everywhere in the global system as shown in this latest release) should be taken as a warning encryption is not the magic cape its proponents claim.
This suggests reliance upon encryption may be a decoy to divert attention from other comsec protection, the old CryptoAG ploy: The most trusted comsec the most likely not.
Why such a suspicious attitide? :o) This loops back to my own initial interpretation of the Snowden affair as a likely deception operation. Since then my opinion of that interpretation has been all over the map in response to new information, but I have never had reason to doubt that the Snowden leaks are controlled for the benefit of the U.S. National Interest. (Material from the second and/or third NSA leakers, believed to be stationed in Germany, maybe not quite so much.) Some of my speculations here are obsolete, but the general concept that the Snowden Saga is not what it appears to be and is strongly influenced and/or controlled by elements of the NatSec community appears to stand up well. I believe it's very possible that Snowden never obtained access to the useful and relevant technical documents that seem to be missing from his dump: http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surro und-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity/5338673 :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJV2Az0AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LINQP/iwXtnHyC27PyZCIGozRoXim 8tw9ZhyqNX4qx9l/xZrbH/xAmZFdPjLDr+4F3JOfhfhJikr/vKGmtvJ48axMCUkK WNei3lcYc2aALgZeSUh/rkeYFCdgaDUEO1mVE0PPaEC4pEWk+MDcn6aCxKGyO4ug SeTSD17mr3WUNpUCcxYpel0PZwo8QdDrsWlaCPtSnwqAwcllm8oS7ePX0e1ADJzh ZHKHnFoYg9OE+669P0H8bPSomjJ9qsEyR4MKkmpU0Ui2wL3fMa+zGFMkugp11Gn9 Bmr6GoENpDhVrMVOQF7pbagVhCGdnViwnflRLeRhNkzXGHyHp1Ug4nwjXxZ7T3T/ NT8KHVwFr1PWdGmdU9KIxryHkVtYnIjQHXvPIfUDGTMKfRAvb17J9+CZ1BuabgBH nzMLmZRsaYjCAY0qkRS47KZogX1pOvegGfupXWTSUXRcTUlLGSDcbwYuA6ijOw7C osikqSW7QgLnDjhvviYpjl8Ubn33whWjr/emJkORLTIPeOz04A6D279hlU4yjXRY TU3p5UOZEnDaunDL3C2GM/V7R2PHcHxf6dr4Jh1gVcF7+Mhq4S1Ky1W8VQokywp1 ZXv1HEmgphi5gtA6bOkRDimAxXaLJPsHh88nFPgoouH1r90YcUFDIxQmjyA8ESo0 pH5LixwAzux+0jBmmB/B =8Z9B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 08/16/2015 09:47 AM, Shelley wrote:
Nothing we didn't know or expect, just more confirmation/proof that AT&T & Verizon are all too eager to get on their knees for the NSA.
https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts-extreme-willing...
Also worth a look: how they connected the dots, supporting documents. https://www.propublica.org/article/a-trail-of-evidence-leading-to-atts-partn...
(Apologies for not including the article text, I'm currently mobile.)
-S
Institute for Public Accuracy has issued a press release from AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein. Klein was the AT&T technician who blew the whistle on AT&T’s cooperation with the NSA in 2006. http://www.accuracy.org/release/att-whistleblower-on-companys-partnership-wi...
“The documents prove I was right, and if a court had been willing to allow the Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit against AT&T to go forward, we would have won. But Congress knowingly put a retroactive pseudo-‘legal’ stamp on the violations of law and the Constitution, and the courts accepted it. Both parties are to blame, all three branches of government are culpable.
“I’d gotten my story out through the New York Times in April 2006 after the Los Angeles Times had killed it. The editor who killed the story was Dean Baquet — who is now executive editor at the New York Times.
“Obama had campaigned against immunizing the telcos, but by the time the vote happened in 2008, he had sewn up the nomination and switched sides. It was a betrayal even before he got to the White House.
“The entire congressional leadership pushed this, especially the ‘gang of eight’ who were the ones who actually knew what the immunity was about. My own senator, Dianne Feinstein, who was on the intelligence committee, wouldn’t even speak with me, she was all about covering up for the NSA.
“Many in congress who voted for the immunity blindly voted to immunize a crime details of which they didn’t know or didn’t want to know.
“It wasn’t just AT&T of course, it was that the Bush administration had brazenly violated FISA and of course the Constitution. They didn’t have a legal leg to stand on, which is why they needed the immunity.”
There's more, mostly a sitrep, on site. RR
Law will always be bent to favor authorities, that is what law does and why lawyers are given special protection and privileges not given to the citizenry. What NSA, ATT, Cisco, Oracle, Microsoft, RSA, Google, ISPs and the others have been doing, and will continue doing, is completely legal and, if insistent, constitutional (the ur law favoring natsec authorities), so it is misleading to claim otherwise. Mark Klein, like Snowden and most other leakers, has been co-opted by lawyers, civil libertarians and wealthy donors to speak to their scripts. If not, then to the poor house dogs. Nothing wrong with being scriptedly misleading, that is what media and law do to whatever raw remarks are handed, leaked, "Secure Drop"-boxed to them ("at own risk of sources"). Nor anything misleading about promising strong encryption and surefire cybersecurity, despite repeated failures, backtracks, apologias, tweakings, full disclosures, that is what they do "because the enemy does" and "we're doing the best we can." No, not national defense grade protection, are you nuts, RTFM. Nor is it misleading about civil liberty, privacy policy, anonymization, open source, HTTPS, the current cipher-sec civil-lib kaboodle. That is necessary for their survival in the marketplace. "That is what competitors do and become rich at it, we're sick of being middling strapped." What might piss off a pristine, completely guiltless humanoid coder is the brazen duplicity of the opponents of the NSA cartel, the enjoyment of perks of being on both sides, wearing dual hats, citizen-official, dissident-loyalist, open-closed, public servant raking in high fees for duping the public about forever known-to-be-faulty comsec, reneging on assurances, duo-dancing on pinheads at comsec fora with mutually celebrated opponents, advising governments, tesitfying for governments, taking government contracts, betraying confidences, fork-tongues a flutter. At 12:27 PM 8/18/2015, you wrote:
On 08/16/2015 09:47 AM, Shelley wrote:
Nothing we didn't know or expect, just more confirmation/proof that AT&T & Verizon are all too eager to get on their knees for the NSA.
https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts-extreme-willing...
Also worth a look: how they connected the dots, supporting documents.
https://www.propublica.org/article/a-trail-of-evidence-leading-to-atts-partn...
(Apologies for not including the article text, I'm currently mobile.)
-S
Institute for Public Accuracy has issued a press release from AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein. Klein was the AT&T technician who blew the whistle on AT&Ts cooperation with the NSA in 2006.
http://www.accuracy.org/release/att-whistleblower-on-companys-partnership-wi...
The documents prove I was right, and if a court had been willing to allow the Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit against AT&T to go forward, we would have won. But Congress knowingly put a retroactive pseudo-legal stamp on the violations of law and the Constitution, and the courts accepted it. Both parties are to blame, all three branches of government are culpable.
Id gotten my story out through the New York Times in April 2006 after the Los Angeles Times had killed it. The editor who killed the story was Dean Baquet who is now executive editor at the New York Times.
Obama had campaigned against immunizing the telcos, but by the time the vote happened in 2008, he had sewn up the nomination and switched sides. It was a betrayal even before he got to the White House.
The entire congressional leadership pushed this, especially the gang of eight who were the ones who actually knew what the immunity was about. My own senator, Dianne Feinstein, who was on the intelligence committee, wouldnt even speak with me, she was all about covering up for the NSA.
Many in congress who voted for the immunity blindly voted to immunize a crime details of which they didnt know or didnt want to know.
It wasnt just AT&T of course, it was that the Bush administration had brazenly violated FISA and of course the Constitution. They didnt have a legal leg to stand on, which is why they needed the immunity.
There's more, mostly a sitrep, on site.
RR
participants (5)
-
Cari Machet -
John Young -
Razer -
Shelley -
Steve Kinney