If we ever want to put an end to the parade of lies the public (and Congress!) have been subjected to on surveillance, the only way to do it is to take some scalps. By undermining the democracy he thinks he is protecting, Mr. Clapper, however patriotic his motives, has made a good claim to be at the head of the line.
Category Archives: Law: Privacy
Read Jennifer Granick’s account of My Dinner With NSA Director Keith Alexander.
The two most striking things were, first, that General Alexander — the head of one of our biggest intelligence agencies — can’t even conceive that a member of the establishment might be to the left of Senator Wyden. Any world view that puts Senator Wyden as the leftmost pole of legitimate domestic politics is seriously impoverished, maybe dangerous.
The Criminal N.S.A., is an important NYT op-ed today by Jennifer Stisa Granick and Christopher Jon Sprigman, explaining the errors of the Obama Administration’s claim that the NSA’s mass surveillance programs are legal.
Here are a few key paragraphs, but read the whole thing,
The government claims that under Section 215 it may seize all of our phone call information now because it might conceivably be relevant to an investigation at some later date, even if there is no particular reason to believe that any but a tiny fraction of the data collected might possibly be suspicious. That is a shockingly flimsy argument — any data might be “relevant” to an investigation eventually, if by “eventually” you mean “sometime before the end of time.” If all data is “relevant,” it makes a mockery of the already shaky concept of relevance.
Like the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act gives the government very broad surveillance authority. And yet the Prism program appears to outstrip that authority. In particular, the government “may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.”
The government knows that it regularly obtains Americans’ protected communications. The Washington Post reported that Prism is designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness” — as John Oliver of “The Daily Show” put it, “a coin flip plus 1 percent.” By turning a blind eye to the fact that 49-plus percent of the communications might be purely among Americans, the N.S.A. has intentionally acquired information it is not allowed to have, even under the terrifyingly broad auspices of the FISA Amendments Act.
If the surveillance is not authorized by law, then the surveillance is criminal. Not that anyone will ever be charged, of course.
Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.
— according to Bloomberg, U.S. Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of Firms.
Turns out what the firms are getting is not data on customers — nor in the main is that what they are giving. Rather the firms are giving advance info on vulnerabilities in their systems that could be used to by the TLA’s1 to get information from vulnerable systems. Plus some of the firms are allowing the feds to install monitoring equipment on their networks, ostensibly to protect against hacking, but in at least some cases with the ability to spy on message traffic.
In exchange, the firms are getting information about who, especially from abroad, is trying to hack them, and some help and advice on defending themselves.
I have no problem with the feds helping US corporations defend themselves against foreign (or domestic) hackers. I do have a problem if the price of that defense is allowing the feds access to customer data.
My first instinct is that I wouldn’t have a problem with firms like Microsoft giving advance warning about vulnerabilities to the feds — whether it is so they can harden their own systems or even if it is so they can take advantage offensively to hack into foreign targets. I would feel that way, however, only so long as I believed the program had adequate safeguards to prevent its misuse against US persons, whether at home or abroad. And, unfortunately, there is no particular reason to believe that to be the case. There is at present a lack of accountability.
TLA == Three Letter Agencies ↩
One of the exceptionally odd things about about the revelations about the NSA metadata and phone records revelations is that I, not to mention various other Cypherpunk fellow travelers, predicted all this 15 years ago.
In fact, we predicted it so long ago, that almost no one seems to remember we did.
I have to say, though, that this is the first story I’ve seen on the subject that made me smile. So that’s something.
Unfortunately, this may not be the perfect test case:
Prosecutor Michael Gilfarb told the judge that even if the information is available, it may be irrelevant depending on whether Brown carried a phone.
Brown’s wife, Vesta Murat Brown, who testified for the prosecution Wednesday morning, told jurors that her husband didn’t have a cellphone at the time but sometimes borrowed phones from her, other family members or friends.
But even if it isn’t, it won’t be long:
Local lawyers said they anticipate there will be many more requests for this kind of information now that defense attorneys know the information may have been preserved.
I think the phrase “pocket Stasi”, meaning a cell phone that tracks and surveils you too much, has legs.
I first ran in to it yesterday, in a review of the Moto X flagged by David Farber’s email list:
… essentially, it’s the world’s most sophisticated cluster of sensors you can wear on your person, and it’s going to know every single thing you do, whether it’s driving, sleeping or taking a walk around the block. Google is betting that you will love your pocket Stasi so much you’ll never want to be without it—and Google is right.
I don’t know what the first use might be – maybe LibrarianShipwreck, The Stasi Agent in Your Pocket?
Yes, it trivializes the horror of the Stasi — totalizing sensors are bad, but not as bad as a secret police, nor is Google a pipeline direct to one. But I still think the phrase has legs.
This, spotted at a local fast foodery, is depressing:
Since when is it the rule that if you don’t want to be on camera, you must be up to no good?
And no, I do not find the concept of a “burrito-cam” comforting in any way shape or form.