+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Panopticon of Global Surveillance (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-42.html)
+--- Thread: US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance (/thread-10838.html)
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Jan Klimkowski - 23-06-2013
Meanwhile, the Germans are calling the latest revelation about GCHQ spying "catastrophic".
Is this hot air?
Sour grapes because this intelligence was not being shared with Gehlen Org, sorry, German intelligence?
Or genuine fury which will lead to retaliatory measures?
Quote:GCHQ monitoring described as a 'catastrophe' by German politicians
Federal ministers demand clarification from UK government on extent of spying conducted on German citizens
Conal Urquhart and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 22 June 2013 18.03 BST
The German justice minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, said the accusations 'sound like a Hollywood nightmare'. Photograph: Ole Spata/Corbis
Britain's European partners have described reports of Britain's surveillance of international electronic communications as a catastrophe and will seek urgent clarification from London.
Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, the German justice minister said the report in the Guardian read like the plot of a film.
"If these accusations are correct, this would be a catastrophe," Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said in a statement to Reuters. "The accusations against Great Britain sound like a Hollywood nightmare. The European institutions should seek straight away to clarify the situation."
Britain's Tempora project enables it to intercept and store immense volumes of British and international communications for 30 days.
With a few months to go before federal elections, the minister's comments are likely to please Germans who are highly sensitive to government monitoring, having lived through the Stasi secret police in communist East Germany and with lingering memories of the Gestapo under the Nazis.
"The accusations make it sound as if George Orwell's surveillance society has become reality in Great Britain," said Thomas Oppermann, floor leader of the opposition Social Democrats.
Orwell's novel 1984 envisioned a futuristic security state where "Big Brother" spied on the intimate details of people's lives.
"This is unbearable," Oppermann told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. "The government must clarify these accusations and act against a total surveillance of German citizens."
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Magda Hassan - 23-06-2013
On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden
Who is actually bringing 'injury to America': those who are secretly building a massive surveillance system or those who inform citizens that it's being done?- Glenn Greenwald
- guardian.co.uk, Saturday 22 June 2013 21.18 AEST
- Glenn Greenwald
The US government has charged Edward Snowden with three felonies, including two under the Espionage Act, the 1917 statute enacted to criminalize dissent against World War I. My priority at the moment is working on our next set of stories, so I just want to briefly note a few points about this.
Prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, there were a grand total of three prosecutions of leakers under the Espionage Act (including the prosecution of Dan Ellsberg by the Nixon DOJ). That's because the statute is so broad that even the US government has largely refrained from using it. But during the Obama presidency, there are now seven such prosecutions: more than double the number under all prior US presidents combined. How can anyone justify that?
For a politician who tried to convince Americans to elect him based on repeated pledges of unprecedented transparency and specific vows to protect "noble" and "patriotic" whistleblowers, is this unparalleled assault on those who enable investigative journalism remotely defensible? Recall that the New Yorker's Jane Mayer said recently that this oppressive climate created by the Obama presidency has brought investigative journalism to a "standstill", while James Goodale, the General Counsel for the New York Times during its battles with the Nixon administration, wrote last month in that paper that "President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom." Read what Mayer and Goodale wrote and ask yourself: is the Obama administration's threat to the news-gathering process not a serious crisis at this point?
Few people - likely including Snowden himself - would contest that his actions constitute some sort of breach of the law. He made his choice based on basic theories of civil disobedience: that those who control the law have become corrupt, that the law in this case (by concealing the actions of government officials in building this massive spying apparatus in secret) is a tool of injustice, and that he felt compelled to act in violation of it in order to expose these official bad acts and enable debate and reform.
But that's a far cry from charging Snowden, who just turned 30 yesterday, with multiple felonies under the Espionage Act that will send him to prison for decades if not life upon conviction. In what conceivable sense are Snowden's actions "espionage"? He could have - but chose not - sold the information he had to a foreign intelligence service for vast sums of money, or covertly passed it to one of America's enemies, or worked at the direction of a foreign government. That is espionage. He did none of those things.
What he did instead was give up his life of career stability and economic prosperity, living with his long-time girlfriend in Hawaii, in order to inform his fellow citizens (both in America and around the world) of what the US government and its allies are doing to them and their privacy. He did that by very carefully selecting which documents he thought should be disclosed and concealed, then gave them to a newspaper with a team of editors and journalists and repeatedly insisted that journalistic judgments be exercised about which of those documents should be published in the public interest and which should be withheld.
That's what every single whistleblower and source for investigative journalism, in every case, does - by definition. In what conceivable sense does that merit felony charges under the Espionage Act?
The essence of that extremely broad, century-old law is that one is guilty if one discloses classified information "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation". Please read this rather good summary in this morning's New York Times of the worldwide debate Snowden has enabled - how these disclosures have "set off a national debate over the proper limits of government surveillance" and "opened an unprecedented window on the details of surveillance by the NSA, including its compilation of logs of virtually all telephone calls in the United States and its collection of e-mails of foreigners from the major American Internet companies, including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple and Skype" - and ask yourself: has Snowden actually does anything to bring "injury to the United States", or has he performed an immense public service?
The irony is obvious: the same people who are building a ubiquitous surveillance system to spy on everyone in the world, including their own citizens, are now accusing the person who exposed it of "espionage". It seems clear that the people who are actually bringing "injury to the United States" are those who are waging war on basic tenets of transparency and secretly constructing a mass and often illegal and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus aimed at American citizens - and those who are lying to the American people and its Congress about what they're doing - rather than those who are devoted to informing the American people that this is being done.
The Obama administration leaks classified information continuously. They do it to glorify the President, or manipulate public opinion, or even to help produce a pre-election propaganda film about the Osama bin Laden raid. The Obama administration does not hate unauthorized leaks of classified information. They are more responsible for such leaks than anyone.
What they hate are leaks that embarrass them or expose their wrongdoing. Those are the only kinds of leaks that are prosecuted. It's a completely one-sided and manipulative abuse of secrecy laws. It's all designed to ensure that the only information we as citizens can learn is what they want us to learn because it makes them look good. The only leaks they're interested in severely punishing are those that undermine them politically. The "enemy" they're seeking to keep ignorant with selective and excessive leak prosecutions are not The Terrorists or The Chinese Communists. It's the American people.
The Terrorists already knew, and have long known, that the US government is doing everything possible to surveil their telephonic and internet communications. The Chinese have long known, and have repeatedly said, that the US is hacking into both their governmental and civilian systems (just as the Chinese are doing to the US). The Russians have long known that the US and UK try to intercept the conversations of their leaders just as the Russians do to the US and the UK.
They haven't learned anything from these disclosures that they didn't already well know. The people who have learned things they didn't already know are American citizens who have no connection to terrorism or foreign intelligence, as well as hundreds of millions of citizens around the world about whom the same is true. What they have learned is that the vast bulk of this surveillance apparatus is directed not at the Chinese or Russian governments or the Terrorists, but at them.
And that is precisely why the US government is so furious and will bring its full weight to bear against these disclosures. What has been "harmed" is not the national security of the US but the ability of its political leaders to work against their own citizens and citizens around the world in the dark, with zero transparency or real accountability. If anything is a crime, it's that secret, unaccountable and deceitful behavior: not the shining of light on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/22/snowden-espionage-charges
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - David Guyatt - 23-06-2013
Quote:For a politician who tried to convince Americans to elect him based on repeated pledges of unprecedented transparency and specific vows to protect "noble" and "patriotic" whistleblowers, is this unparalleled assault on those who enable investigative journalism remotely defensible? Recall that the New Yorker's Jane Mayer said recently that this oppressive climate created by the Obama presidency has brought investigative journalism to a "standstill", while James Goodale, the General Counsel for the New York Times during its battles with the Nixon administration, wrote last month in that paper that "President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom." Read what Mayer and Goodale wrote and ask yourself: is the Obama administration's threat to the news-gathering process not a serious crisis at this point?
Let's say what this is. Blaming Obama is a deflection. Obama clearly is an obedient servant of Spookdom, not the other way around. The national intelligence community is the state these days, and different political candidates are selected by them who will do their bidding. This is as true in the UK as it is in the US.
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Magda Hassan - 23-06-2013
From Wikileaks.
Quote:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEMr Edward Snowden, the American whistleblower who exposed evidence of a global surveillance regime conducted by US and UK intelligence agencies, has left Hong Kong legally. He is bound for a democratic nation via a safe route for the purposes of asylum, and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisors from WikiLeaks.
Mr Snowden requested that WikiLeaks use its legal expertise and experience to secure his safety. Once Mr Snowden arrives at his final destination his request will be formally processed.
Former Spanish Judge Mr Baltasar Garzon, legal director of Wikileaks and lawyer for Julian Assange has made the following statement:
"The WikiLeaks legal team and I are interested in preserving Mr Snowden's rights and protecting him as a person. What is being done to Mr Snowden and to Mr Julian Assange - for making or facilitating disclosures in the public interest - is an assault against the people".
I'd say there has been a lot of meetings and enquiries and decisions already made behind the scenes by several people before he took off anywhere. And I'm pretty sure Hong Kong gave him the nod in advance. I even wonder if he is on the Aeroflot plane and not already in some other place.
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Magda Hassan - 23-06-2013
2.25pm BST
Vans belonging to Russian presidential administration waiting by Aeroflot jets pic.twitter.com/f2THVsAytq
Miriam Elder (@MiriamElder) June 23, 2013
Miriam Elder in Moscow, who is at Sheremetyevo airport, has tweeted this.Miriam Elder (@MiriamElder) June 23, 2013
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Magda Hassan - 23-06-2013
Various tweets are citing Russia's Interfax news agency as saying Snowden was met on the airport tarmac by a Venezuelan diplomat, who took him away in a car.
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Peter Lemkin - 23-06-2013
Magda Hassan Wrote:Various tweets are citing Russia's Interfax news agency as saying Snowden was met on the airport tarmac by a Venezuelan diplomat, who took him away in a car.
Hugo Chavez is still on the job! The USA is going to be furious at Hong Kong, at Russia, at everyone.....Assange and Wikileaks are taking credit for facilitating all that happened....don't know.... Apparently, he will fly to Havana and then on to Ecuador, though. This is getting interesting!
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Jan Klimkowski - 23-06-2013
Lookee here - a damage limitation, sloping shoulders, exercise by elements of the secret world.
Maybe Gehlen Org have been on the phone.
Reporter Nick Davies is an excellent investigative journalist, with very good sources.
Quote:MI5 feared GCHQ went 'too far' over phone and internet monitoring
Amid leaks from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, senior intelligence source reveals worries were voiced in 2008
Nick Davies
The Observer, Saturday 22 June 2013 20.18 BST
GCHQ taps can intercept UK and US phone and internet traffic
Senior figures inside British intelligence have been alarmed by GCHQ's secret decision to tap into transatlantic cables in order to engage in the bulk interception of phone calls and internet traffic.
According to one source who has been directly involved in GCHQ operations, concerns were expressed when the project was being discussed internally in 2008: "We felt we were starting to overstep the mark with some of it. People from MI5 were complaining that they were going too far from a civil liberties perspective … We all had reservations about it, because we all thought: 'If this was used against us, we wouldn't stand a chance'."
The Guardian revealed on Friday that GCHQ has placed more than 200 probes on transatlantic cables and is processing 600m "telephone events" a day as well as up to 39m gigabytes of internet traffic. Using a programme codenamed Tempora, it can store and analyse voice recordings, the content of emails, entries on Facebook, the use of websites as well as the "metadata" which records who has contacted who. The programme is shared with GCHQ's American partner, the National Security Agency.
Interviews with the UK source and the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden raise questions about whether the programme:
â– Exploits existing law which was passed by parliament without any anticipation that it would be used for this purpose.
â– For the first time allows GCHQ to process bulk internal UK traffic which is routed overseas via these cables.
â– Allows the NSA to engage in bulk intercepts of internal US traffic which would be forbidden in its own territory.
â– Functions with no effective oversight.
The key law is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Ripa, which requires the home secretary or foreign secretary to sign warrants for the interception of the communications of defined targets. But the law also allows the foreign secretary to sign certificates that authorise GCHQ to trawl for broad categories of information on condition that one end of the communication is outside the UK.
According to the UK source: "Not so long ago, this was all about attaching crocodile clips to copper wires. And it was all about voice. Now, it's about the internet massive scale but still using the same law that was devised for crocodile clips. Ripa was primarily designed for voice, not for this level of interception. They are going round Ripa. The legislation doesn't exist for this. They are using old legislation and adapting it."
The source claimed that even the conventional warrant system has been distorted whereas police used to ask for a warrant before intercepting a target's communications, they will now ask GCHQ to intercept the target's communications and then use that information to seek a warrant.
There is a particular concern that the programme allows GCHQ to break the boundary which stopped it engaging in the bulk interception of internal UK communications. The Ripa requirement that one end of a communication must be outside the UK was a significant restriction when it was applied to phone calls using satellites, but it is no longer effective in the world of fibre-optic cables. "The point is that this is an island," the source said. "Everything comes and goes nearly everything down fibre-optic cables. You make a mobile phone call, it goes to a mast and then down into a fibre-optic cable, under the ground and away. And even if the call is UK to UK, it's very likely because of the way the system is structured to go out of the UK and come back in through these fibre-optic channels."
Internet traffic is also liable to be routed internationally even if the message is exchanged between two people within the UK. "At one point, I was told that we were getting 85% of all UK domestic traffic voice, internet, all of it via these international cables."
Last year, the government was mired in difficulty when it tried to pass a communications bill that became known as the "snoopers' charter", and would have allowed the bulk interception and storage of UK voice calls and internet traffic. The source says this debate was treated with some scepticism inside the intelligence community "We're sitting there, watching them debate the snoopers' charter, thinking: 'Well, GCHQ have been doing this for years'."
There are similar concerns about the role of the NSA. It could have chosen to attach probes to the North American end of the cables and documents shown to the Guardian by Edward Snowden suggest that key elements of the Tempora filtering process were designed by the NSA. Instead, the NSA agency has exported its computer programs and 250 of its analysts to operate the system from the UK.
Initial inquiries by the Guardian have failed to explain why this has happened, but US legislators are likely to want to check whether the NSA has sought to bypass legal or policy requirements which restrict its activity in the US. This will be particularly sensitive if it is confirmed that Tempora is also analysing internal US traffic.
The UK source challenges the official justification for the programme; that it is necessary for the fight against terrorism and serious crime: "This is not scoring very high against those targets, because they are wise to the monitoring of their communications. If the terrorists are wise to it, why are we increasing the capability?
"The answer is that you can't stop it. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we develop communications technology, the more they develop technology to intercept it. There was MS Chat easy. Then Yahoo chat did that, too. Then Facebook. Then Skype. Then Twitter. They keep catching up. It is good for us, but it is bad for us."
It is clear from internal paperwork that GCHQ has created systems to restrain the use of this powerful tool and to ensure that its use complies not only with Ripa but also with the 1998 Human Rights Act, which requires essentially that the use of the data must be proportional to the crime or threat investigated. Defenders insist that the mass of data is heavily filtered by the programme so that only that relating to legitimate targets is analysed.
However, there are doubts about the effectiveness of this. First, according to the UK source, "written definitions for targeting and filtering are very elastic. They are wide open to interpretation." The target areas defined by the Ripa certificates are secret.
Second, there is further room for interpretation when human analysts become involved in using the filtered intelligence to produce what are known as "contact chains". "Here is target A. But who is A talking to? Now we're into B and C and D." If analysts believe it is proportional, they can look at all the traffic content and metadata relating to all of the target's contact." GCHQ audits a sample of its analysts' work believed to be 5% every six months but even the statistical results of these audits are also secret.
Beyond the detail of the operation of the programme, there is a larger, long-term anxiety, clearly expressed by the UK source: "If there was the wrong political change, it could be very dangerous. All you need is to have the wrong government in place. It is capable of abuse because there is no independent scrutiny."
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Magda Hassan - 23-06-2013
The NSA doesn't seem to get the irony when they accuse Snowden of breeching their trust and stealing secrets.
US spy chief Clapper defends Prism and phone surveillance - Magda Hassan - 24-06-2013
All perfectly proper of course but it also reads a bureaucratic fuck you from the HK government to the US.
Quote:The HKSAR Government today (June 23) issued the following statement on Mr Edward Snowden:Mr Edward Snowden left Hong Kong today (June 23) on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and normal channel.
The US Government earlier on made a request to the HKSAR Government for the issue of a provisional warrant of arrest against Mr Snowden. Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the HKSAR Government has requested the US Government to provide additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government's request can meet the relevant legal conditions. As the HKSAR Government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.
The HKSAR Government has already informed the US Government of Mr Snowden's departure.
Meanwhile, the HKSAR Government has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on earlier reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. The HKSAR Government will continue to follow up on the matter so as to protect the legal rights of the people of Hong Kong.
Ends/Sunday, June 23, 2013