NSA Whistleblower Explains How The NSA Is Collecting Data On All Of You (And He's Sorry About It)
from the unfortunate dept
Last year, in writing about the US government's vindictive lawsuit against whistleblower and former NSA employee Thomas Drake, we also talked about William Binney -- another ex-NSA employee and whistleblower (who was also raided by the feds, though they failed to find anything they could pin on him in a lawsuit). Binney is the mathematical genius behind one of the key algorithms the NSA is using to track everyone. Here's what the New Yorker said about Binner over a year ago:Binney expressed terrible remorse over the way some of his algorithms were used after 9/11. ThinThread, the "little program" that he invented to track enemies outside the U.S., "got twisted," and was used for both foreign and domestic spying: "I should apologize to the American people. It's violated everyone's rights. It can be used to eavesdrop on the whole world."Now, the NY Times has something of a following, including a short documentary feature about Binney and his whistleblowing over the NSA's domestic spying. It's really worth watching as it very simply highlights how vast the domestic spying effort is, however powerful it can be -- and also how the NSA dances around the fact that it's not allowed to spy on Americans. They claim that as long as they're not actually looking at the content they record and store directly, it's just collecting the info and not actually spying on people. That is, they think that acquiring all this data is fine, so long as they don't directly query the info. But... as Binney explains, his algorithms (which have likely been updated quite a bit) can still go through all this info and build basic "profiles" of just about anyone. It's really worth watching, if only to wonder how anyone thinks this is acceptable.
I'd embed the video here, except the geniuses over at the NY Times seem to have not figured out how to allow embeds with their video player.
The documentary was put together by Laura Poitras, who notes that thanks to some over-aggressive surveillance she, too, is on a "watch-list," thanks to a documentary she did about Iraq.
I have been detained at the border more than 40 times. Once, in 2011, when I was stopped at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and asserted my First Amendment right not to answer questions about my work, the border agent replied, “If you don’t answer our questions, we’ll find our answers on your electronics.”’ As a filmmaker and journalist entrusted to protect the people who share information with me, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to work in the United States. Although I take every effort to secure my material, I know the N.S.A. has technical abilities that are nearly impossible to defend against if you are targeted.All of this attention, by the way, is to question why Congress is so intent on re-authorizing the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) which is what gives the NSA a pass on much of this spying, thanks to a "secret interpretation" of the law, which the public is not allowed to even know about. If this sounds like the sort of thing that shouldn't be allowed in a free and open society, you're just beginning to grasp the problem.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fisa amendments act, nsa, spying, surveillance, whistleblowing, william binney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A sure fire way to be stop the NSA? I hear bullets can be pretty effective. And that, friends, is how you end up on a watch list. To my new NSA buddies: do I get a door prize?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They can't really hide it more than they already are. It's well-hidden even from Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
www.lp.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If either party just produces something you are unsatisfied with, then you are "just throwing away your vote" there too. Might as well throw it away someplace where at least you are making a statement. If enough of us stop supporting the two ruling parties, we might be able to affect some change.
But we never will as long as you reject the possibility of an alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything for the Homeland
Learn from the best, I guess, in pursuit of ultimate control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anything for the Homeland
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not accept his apology
People who do this kind of work either know that their work is going to be used for evil, or remain intentionally ignorant of that fact. I have no sympathy for them, and do not accept their apologies when they later learn the damage that they've caused -- which happens pretty frequently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I do not accept his apology
Washington Politics is a Cancer on our Nation !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I do not accept his apology
Congress should accept all the blame, all the scorn, all the hatred for what they started, not so much the tool used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My thoughts in cannon on 2007&2008 revisions to FISA
I would like to point out that the Foreighn Intelegence Serveillance Act of 1978 was just fine. It the provisions in the 2007 and 2008 amendments that are most agregious to the 4th amendment.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
The Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA), (Pub.L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552, enacted by S. 1927), is a controversial amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was signed into law on August 5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the United States.[1] The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 repealed the Protect America Act, but replaced it with similar provisions in Title VII of FISA.
Meaning warrants are not required with "probable cause" during surveillance of Foreighn entities. This explains why the DOJ thinks they could handle the Megaupload case as they did.
The 2008 Amendment to FISA 1978 is much much worse:
1. Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
Telecoms added this to prevent the states from investigating their illegal practices....6 strikes anyone?
2. Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
That's just great. They don't have to keep records of when they search you or tap your wires or monitor your communications. That is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment to the US constitutional bill of rights. Oh if the evidence that you've been proven innocent is destroyed, that has the potential to destroy the Double Jeoperdy clause.
3.Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists." Immunity is given by a certification process. The certification can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.
Once again, how the 6 strikes program became legalized in the US.
4. Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.
One word alone can describe a recent incident....Megaupload.
5. Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to a U.S person located outside of the U.S with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.
Well who wants this with Atorney General Eric Holder in power?
6. Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for 1-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.
This did not ever happen under the Bush Jr administration.
7. Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.
What interest the Feds will have with my Archtect sister Working for Starbucks in China when she calls home I'll never know. Oh, and while I'm in the subject, ive answered the phone with her voice and a PRC office could be heard in the background during her pre-Starbucks contracts.
8. Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)
This applies to all of us. I just hope my wife doesn't find out thevfeds listened in on our sexting during our Cancun honeymoon.
9. Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.[17]
Well at least someone thought of scenarios simular my comment to number 8. Mexico, it's none of your goddamn business what I say to
My wife... Though this doesn't make it right for the Feds either.
10. Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
That's most likely 30 days more they will be watching you.
11. Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
Ok, what if the wrong papers are filed? Oh I know, barge in anyway. Seize the mansion of an extremely loveable and eccentric tech.
12. Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.
Screams of "this is MY jurisdiction bub, stay the fuck out".
13. Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year.
Prevents another watergate from happening...this means cover up whatever crime the President commits during his time in office.
Source for the Privisions:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008#section_3
http://www.tech dirt.com/articles/20120720/17450619780/feds-wait-until-late-friday-to-admit-that-yeah-they-ignored-4 th-amendment.shtml#c183
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My thoughts in cannon on 2007&2008 revisions to FISA
I would disagree with that characterization. It's fairer to say that it's much better than later amendments and revisions.
The biggest problem I have with FISA is the creation of the FISA courts. The FISA courts are a joke, a mere rubber-stamp operation that allows the government to do nearly anything they want. They just have to get the FISA court to approve it, and the FISA court has approved very nearly 100% of everything that's been asked of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My thoughts in cannon on 2007&2008 revisions to FISA
John Fenderson my friend, I am curious as to what you would it of as a satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My thoughts in cannon on 2007&2008 revisions to FISA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts in cannon on 2007&2008 revisions to FISA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My thoughts in cannon on 2007&2008 revisions to FISA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the same sort of logic that shapes their claim that it would be a breach of privacy to reveal how many U.S. citizens they're spying on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
denied
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And if they're that interested, then you already know it and have bigger problems than the contents of your laptop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem?
What we have here are the makings of "what was once fiction" (which, in fact, is oft repeated). It seems to be getting worse too. A string match grows into a catalog string match grows into a records collection grows into a full past and present locations collection grows into a full finance trace and voila - profile. So, yes, we are all cataloged where any root product of the day happens to exist. It's the "root product of the day" that we should be wary of. It would seem some are wary but now the beast has outgrown its cage. Being wary is wholly insufficient. Transgressions will continue and the glamor and prestige and finance of gaining and maintaining a political position combined with party ownership is resulting in accelerated deterioration of this particular form of government in this particular country it would seem.
The government agencies - the product of legislation and executive administrations are overwhelming the continent. They're overwhelming the people with power, authority, bureaucracy, selective enforcement, uncontained and manipulative rules of engagement. Then we have the ever more powerful large, multi-national corporations (about 14 filthy rich guys I'd guess). Particularly egregious their influence is.
Life is still good right now - tough but good, yes? We can only string along content with government by economy for so long though. I guess how long is the question. How long is too long? How soon is now? And why would a lot of these "lightly armed" government agencies be requisitioning ammunition? Hollow point?
So, I guess the "problem" is not one of prevention or containment anymore is it? A bit like diplomacy with Hitler that.
I think, and it is just a thought, that we are on the verge of requiring an altogether new means of governing. I mean if this Internet thing has anything to show us then having a couple hundred well heeled representatives is sadly insufficient. Underrepresented is the word I think, and how. Worries about who fucks who, who smokes what and who wears what to church and which church has no place in national policies. None. At all. Not this nation. Not any nation if I had any say. Anyway, seriously though, that's the damn deal with copyright? Who put them in charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I think The Second Amendment will be the only thing to save the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If violent revolution ever comes to the US, the people will be massively outgunned. The second amendment doesn't affect that one bit.
That's not to say the government would automatically win, but it is to say that if the revolutionaries win, that win won't be a result of the protection the second amendment provides for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
UAV's are flown by remote control, so even then, there is a human element.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not quite. All it would take now is for some bureaucrat to put your name on a high-profile terrorist list, or even a kill list. With all of the anti-terrorist rhetoric being drilled into their heads, there's definitely soldiers who'd be willing to look you in the eye and shoot you dead on the spot without blinking, at least enough to put down any localized uprising. If push comes to shove, Washington would use drone strikes and mercs against American citizens, even on American soil. To many of the bureaucrats and politicians, they're protecting their countrymen--and by "countrymen", they mean themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that would be just the beginning of our troubles. If our nation ever fell into civil unrest/war, our enemies would inevitably take advantage at our time of weakness and division. So, either way, we'd all lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if the targeted group was bigger and included the families and loved ones of local enforcement, or even enforcement officers themselves, the government would simply bring in other troops from further away--ones with less personal investment in the community. They would simply be told that the "terrorist" have infiltrated the local law enforcement, creating a "stronghold", and that the "terrorist" must be hunted to "contain" the uprising and protect their their families and loved ones' back home. And if that fails, the government would escalate to options that are even more detached from the community, such as drone strikes and mercs. Now, stop and actually think about this for a moment. Does ANY of this sound familiar?
You know, the "War on Terror"? I'm talking about what would be War on Terror 2.0, Homeland Edition. The government would fight to keep uprisings "contained" and localized. By branding them as "terrorist", the government would try to demoralize instigators in other regions and distance the general population from them to keep others from joining. Divide and conquer is a strategy as old as war itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's why control of communications will always trump control of the means of destruction.
The Pen is still mightier than the Sword.
Also the reason why the 1st Amendment is first and the 2nd Amendment is second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They may or may not want to, but they will nonetheless. Even in just 20th century American history, we see numerous examples.
In any case, the ancient Romans figured out how to work around that. It's not hard: you take advantage of regional bigotry, and have the citizens of one area be enforcers over the citizens of an area they're already biased against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's high time we vote conscience and forgo the false dream of betterment from the top two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Go watch this video by C.G.P. Grey for what I believe to be a really good explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=share&list=EC87DB3F7E8107A4AE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Our history is full of examples of broad changes in party philosophy - there's been something like 4 or 5 two-party systems in the U.S.
You're forgetting your history lessons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law: You shall not kill.
Interpretation: You cannot take any person's life.
Secret interpretation: It's okay to kill if the victim uses a turban and says Allah regularly.
There's nothing written that even indicates the act can be done but they take those secret interpretations out of their collective behinds and use it. And no1 can challenge those interpretations because they are secret. What kind of fucked up logic is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
everybody likes a conspiracy theory
why not be more concerned about the FBI's data, being it actually has the authority to act on domestic data and activities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: everybody likes a conspiracy theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: everybody likes a conspiracy theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
being harrassed by nsa satellite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heros do still exist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]