NSA Tapping UN Isn't A Huge Surprise -- But Ability To Crack Video Conferencing Encryption Raises Questions

from the yay! dept

Over the weekend, Der Spiegel broke the somewhat unsurprising news that the NSA had bugged the UN and various EU embassies in the US and had hacked into the UN's videoconferencing software to be able to get access to such calls. On a first pass, this isn't all that surprising. As we noted with some earlier leaks, spying on foreign diplomats is just something that countries do. Spying on foreign government officials is very different than spying on the public. Of course, since the NSA insists that it does everything to avoid intercepting communications of people inside the US, I wondered how they could make that claim while directly tapping conference calls from the UN in NY. The answer is likely to be yet another classic NSA twisting of the words to find a loophole. While the UN headquarters are in NYC, "technically" the headquarters are outside of the US and in the control of the UN itself, but with an agreement that it abides by all local laws. This is similar to embassies, which are often treated as if they are the territory of the country that uses them. I'm wondering if the NSA is using that to argue these are fair game, since they're "outside" the US.

There's also the issue, as noted in the article, that President Obama has insisted that the spying on people was only done to prevent terrorism -- and spying on EU diplomats seems unlikely to have anything to do with terrorism prevention. But, again, spying between government officials is kind of expected, and not quite a huge deal, even if it may present a diplomatic problem for the US.

Much more interesting to me, however, is the snippet claiming that the NSA had figured out how to hack into the UN's video conferencing software, allowing them to record internal video conferences. In fact, after this was cracked just a year ago, a document was sent around, "celebrating" this:

Furthermore, NSA technicians working for the Blarney program have managed to decrypt the UN's internal video teleconferencing (VTC) system. The combination of this new access to the UN and the cracked encryption code have led to "a dramatic improvement in VTC data quality and (the) ability to decrypt the VTC traffic," the NSA agents noted with great satisfaction: "This traffic is getting us internal UN VTCs (yay!)." Within just under three weeks, the number of decrypted communications increased from 12 to 458.

Yay! We can spy on more things! Yay! Either way, I'm curious if anyone knows who provides the UN's video conferencing technology, because that's now a much more interesting issue. The suggestion being made that the NSA "cracked" the encryption that was being used could have much wider implications if true -- so it would be nice to know what kind of encryption, and what sort of system is being used. Either way, I'm guessing that many in the UN will be seeking out alternative communication methods shortly.

Filed Under: diplomacy, encryption, espionage, eu, nsa, nsa surveillance, spying, un, video conferencing

Germany And US Government's Agree Not To Spy On Each Other... But What About Their Citizens?

from the so-us-is-more-concerned-about-germany-than-its-own-people? dept

As a bunch of folks have been sending in, the US and Germany have announced that, in the wake of the various revelations about NSA surveillance (as well as surveillance efforts by other countries, including the UK and Germany), the US government and the German government are working on ironing out an agreement to not spy on each other -- apparently covering both government espionage and corporate espionage (done by intelligence services). Of course, it's not like any countries have spying agreements. Doing that kind of espionage is always "illegal" but it's done anyway. Does anyone think an agreement between the two countries would actually stop the spying? No chance. Even more hilarious, Germany is claiming that existing US spying is already "legal."

In the progress report, the German government found that U.S. intelligence services comply with German law. Also, the operators of large German Internet exchanges and the federal government did not find any evidence that the U.S. spies on Germans, the government said.

Yeah, okay. So, if that's true (and it's clearly not, given the fact that the NSA automatically is spying on pretty much any communication between Germany and the US by default), then this "no spying" arrangement is meaningless. If it's not true, then it just suggests that the US can continue doing the spying that it's doing and Germany will look the other way. This seems more like an announcement to make people in Germany think it's government is doing something in response to the stories of the NSA's activities.

But, back to a larger point: it seems somewhat ridiculous that President Obama has rushed to stop spying on Germany, while refusing to do anything to stop the surveillance of Americans themselves. While Obama claims that there's no domestic spying program, that's already been shown to be absolutely false.

So the message we get is that the US government will spy on Americans, lie about it, and when other countries act annoyed about more global spying, the US will actually pretend to stop that spying program... but the domestic spying will continue.

Filed Under: espionage, germany, no spying, surveillance, us

It's Dangerous For Free Speech When We Confuse Leakers With Spies

from the they're-not-the-same dept

We've tried to make similar points a few times in the past about our concern with the Obama administration going after whistleblowers and the journalists who publish their leaks by using the Espionage Act more than all other Presidents in history, combined (more than twice as much, actually). But the NY Times has a great piece highlighting how the federal government now seems to completely blur the lines between being a leaker and a spy.

“Obama apparently cannot distinguish between communicating information to the enemy and communicating information to the press,” Mr. Goodale wrote. “The former is espionage, the latter is not.”

This is dangerous for a whole host of reasons -- including having an informed and knowledgeable public. But it's also dangerous from a First Amendment standpoint. Remember, the First Amendment protects freedom of expression and freedom of the press -- and both are closely linked when we're talking about whistleblowers leaking information to the public via the press. When we start turning the leakers and the press into "spies" we make that much more difficult, and as a result we have a less free society, and a much more controlling and abusive government.

Of course, some would argue that this is the goal. The very same article quotes former Bush administration apologist lawyer John Yoo -- infamous in part because of his tortured legal defense, twisting the clear meaning and intent of the Geneva Conventions in order to pretend that the US could use torture as an interrogation technique without violating the rules. Not surprisingly, Yoo doesn't have any problem at all with condemning leakers as spies.

“Manning’s defenders will say that Manning only leaked information to the 21st-century equivalent of a newspaper, and that he could not have known that Al Qaeda would read it,” Professor Yoo wrote in National Review Online.

“But WikiLeaks is not The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, and it does not have First Amendment rights,” he added. “Manning communicated regularly with WikiLeaks’ founder and would have known about the group’s anarchic, anti-U.S. mission.”

Of course, Yoo is either woefully ignorant or flat out lying -- neither of which makes him look good. First of all, the Manning/Lamo transcripts make it quite clear that Manning had very little communications with Assange. But, even more important, as research from professor Yochai Benkler made clear, prior to Manning's leaks, Wikileaks was not seen as anti-US in its mission at all. Its earlier leaks had been focused on mostly corporate and government malfeasance around the globe (mostly outside the US), such as with Bank Julius Baer. As Benkler explained:

When you read the hundreds of news stories and other materials published about WikiLeaks before early 2010, what you see is a young, exciting new media organization. The darker stories about Julian Assange and the dangers that the site poses developed only in the latter half of 2010, as the steady release of leaks about the U.S. triggered ever-more hyperbolic denouncements from the Administration (such as Joe Biden's calling Assange a “high-tech terrorist”), and as relations between Assange and his traditional media partners soured.

In early 2010, when Manning did his leaking, none of that had happened yet. WikiLeaks was still a new media phenom, an outfit originally known for releasing things like a Somali rebel leader’s decision to assassinate government officials in Somalia, or a major story exposing corruption in the government of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya. Over the years WikiLeaks also exposed documents that shined a light on U.S. government practices, such as operating procedures in Camp Delta in Guantanamo or a draft of a secretly negotiated, highly controversial trade treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. But that was not the primary focus. To name but a few examples, it published documents that sought to expose a Swiss Bank’s use of Cayman accounts to help rich clients avoid paying taxes, oil related corruption in Peru, banking abuses in Iceland, pharmaceutical company influence peddling at the World Health Organization, and extra-judicial killings in Kenya. For its work, WikiLeaks won Amnesty International's New Media award in 2009 and the Freedom of Expression Award from the British magazine, Index of Censorship, in 2008.

Furthermore, the idea that Yoo has that Wikileaks somehow "does not have First Amendment rights" because it's "not the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal" makes no sense. It's just assuming that because one brand is established and another is new that the established one automatically has greater rights than the new one. That's an argument based on nothing more than historical bias, rather than any sort of recognition of reality. Wikileaks was never focused on the US, but was focused on revealing conspiracies of all kinds -- that the US just happened to be involved in many speaks more to problems with the way the US government works, than to Wikileaks itself.

But there's a larger, more troubling, point in all of this. When we redefine whistleblower and leaker to the point that they're considered "spies," and, at the same time, accuse journalists and media outlets of being co-conspirators and not being covered by the same basic rights that we supposedly honor in this country, the further and further we get from the basic ideals of a free and fair society. Again, those in power don't seem to much care for a free and fair society -- because they're in power. But for people who would like to have a government that actually represents the people, this should be a major concern.

Filed Under: bradley manning, ed snowden, espionage, free speech, leaks, whistleblowing

Ex-CIA/NSA Boss Says Snowden Worse Than Every Spy From Benedict Arnold To The Rosenbergs

from the also,-glenn-greenwald-is-a-co-conspirator dept

Former CIA and NSA boss Michael Hayden has already been making the rounds saying stupid things about Ed Snowden and his leaks, but he took it to a new level late last week by comparing Ed Snowden to a variety of former Americans who gave secrets to foreign governments... and then declaring that Snowden is worse than all of them.

I know that we have had our share of spies.

Benedict Arnold was bent on betraying the garrison at West Point to the British during the Revolution. Klaus Fuchs and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg ferreted out nuclear secrets for the Russians. Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen identified American penetrations for ultimate execution by the Soviets.

We have also had our share of leakers.

Daniel Ellsberg copied thousands of pages of documents related to the Vietnam War. Bradley Manning is accused of indiscriminately scoured the Defense Department's SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) for all manner of military reports and diplomatic cables.

But Snowden is in a class by himself.

Did you catch that? He's claiming that Snowden is worse than Benedict Arnold -- who directly gave info to the British while we were at war with them. And Fuchs and the Rosenbergs, who provided nuclear secrets to the Russians at the dawn of the cold war. And he says that a guy who blew the whistle on our own government's pervasive and questionable surveillance regime on its own citizens is somehow worse? Does he honestly think anyone can take him seriously after that?

The argument, basically, is that because it's digital, Snowden has a lot more info. And, despite Snowden's rather vocal assurances that he set things up so that the Russians and the Chinese could not get access to the data he had, Hayden is positive they already got it, noting he "would lose all respect for China's Ministry of State Security and Russia's FSB if they have not already fully harvested Snowden's digital data trove." Of course, this leaves out that part of Snowden's expertise which was in setting up systems to keep such information from falling into foreign intelligence hands. In other words, if Snowden couldn't protect such info, then it sure sounds like the overall NSA probably wouldn't have been able to stop it either -- meaning that it's highly likely China and Russia already had this info. Besides, if anyone thinks that the Chinese and the Russians didn't already know that the US was tapping into pretty much all internet communications then they're pretty clueless.

Hayden is just spreading FUD to try to make a case against Snowden that just isn't there.

Hayden goes on to blame Snowden for: "the undeniable economic punishment that will be inflicted on American businesses for simply complying with American law." Got that? It's Snowden's fault that people will be less willing to do business with American companies because the NSA has been forcing them to hand over all sorts of data. I don't know about you, but it sure seems like if you're looking for someone to pin the blame on for that economic issue, it should start and end with the NSA itself for twisting the law and getting the companies to cough up such info.

As we've said before, if these programs really are so great and so important, then the intelligence community should have no problem with defending the basic programs in public. Tell us why they're necessary and let the public debate it. Keeping them secret has no real benefits. Criminals know that law enforcement can tap phone lines. That's been around for ages. We don't expect law enforcement to keep those sorts of capabilities secret. The only reason to keep these programs totally secret is because folks like Hayden (who led the initial warrantless wiretapping efforts) know that they're almost certainly breaking the law.

Going even further, Hayden stomps even further on our Constitution (the one he was supposed to protect) by shifting from the 4th Amendment that he's already contributed to spitting on and turning to the 1st. Within the piece, he claims that reporter Glenn Greenwald, who helped to break Snowden's story is also guilty of breaking the law:

The Guardian newspaper's Glenn Greenwald, far more deserving of the Justice Department's characterization of a co-conspirator than Fox's James Rosen ever was....

Based on what? The answer is absolutely nothing. Hayden is childishly smearing Greenwald because he's not happy about the leaks. Of course, Greenwald had the perfect comeback:

I've long thought Michael Hayden belongs in prison for implementing illegal warrantless eavesdropping at Americans

So I guess they're even?

Though, honestly, Greenwald has a really good point here. Perhaps Hayden's vitriolic lashing out at Snowden and Greenwald is a lot more about his realizing that among the documents that Snowden must have might include more than a few that implicate Hayden's activities back when he was in charge of the warrantless wiretapping programs. Might as well get a few potshots in first before those come out, I guess?

Filed Under: benedict arnold, china, ed snowden, espionage, glenn greenwald, michael hayden, nsa, nsa surveillance, russia, the rosenbergs

Obama To Angry Europeans: Hey, Come On, You Guys Spy On Us Too, Right? Right?

from the what's-a-little-spying-among-friends dept

When the news of the US spying on EU embassies and various other official buildings came out over the weekend, we noted that this really wasn't that surprising, as it appeared to be very typical espionage -- the kind that has happened for decades, if not centuries. Still, it's not entirely clear that President Obama's response to this controversy is particularly tactful. He basically uses the "hey, come on guys, we're all doing this to each other, right?" excuse:

"We should stipulate that every intelligence service – not just ours, but every European intelligence service, every Asian intelligence service, wherever there's an intelligence service … here's one thing that they're going to be doing: they're going to be trying to understand the world better and what's going on in world capitals," he told a press conference during a long-scheduled trip Tanzania. "If that weren't the case, then there'd be no use for an intelligence service."

"And I guarantee you that in European capitals, there are people who are interested in, if not what I had for breakfast, at least what my talking points might be should I end up meeting with their leaders. That's how intelligence services operate," Obama added.

While I still think that this particular revelation is hardly that surprising, and agree that it's almost certain that various European countries are doing the same sort of thing to the US, I do wonder if that's the most tactful response to the growing controversy. Still, I do wonder if the focus on this will take away from the much larger issue of using intelligence services not to spy on other governments, but on the public via mass dragnet collections of information.

Filed Under: barack obama, embassies, espionage, eu, nsa surveillance, surveillance

Latest Leak Showing US Spying On EU Embassies Not That Surprising

from the is-this-a-surprise dept

Over the weekend there were a few more "Snowden" leaks released, starting off with evidence that the US intelligence community (possibly involving the NSA, CIA and FBI) had been bugging a whole bunch of EU officials, including in their US embassies, but also in Europe as well. There is the reasonable and expected outrage from EU officials who really don't like the idea that their own allies are spying on all their calls, emails, faxes, etc. I can see how this may be quite awkward from a diplomatic standpoint, but of the various leaks to date, this one seems the least interesting. This kind of thing is exactly what intelligence agencies do. They spy on each other's government officials. Bugging embassies is a tradition that goes back quite a few decades. I'd actually be more surprised if we found out that the US wasn't bugging those communications.

Of course, that doesn't make things comfortable for the US, who will now certainly have to explain itself to a large number of allies.

The eavesdropping on the EU delegation to the US, on K Street in Washington, involved three different operations targeted on the embassy's 90 staff. Two were electronic implants and one involved the use of antennas to collect transmissions.

[....] The operation against the French mission to the UN had the covername "Blackfoot" and the one against its embassy in Washington was "Wabash". The Italian embassy in Washington was known to the NSA as both "Bruneau" and "Hemlock".

The eavesdropping of the Greek UN mission was known as "Powell" and the operation against its embassy was referred to as "Klondyke".

This kind of stuff just confirms more typical intelligence agency activities. The original leaks about surveillance specifically on the public remains a much bigger concern, though I do wonder if revealing spying on allies may lead to some chillier reactions to various agreements like the upcoming TAFTA negotiations.

Filed Under: allies, cia, diplomatic problems, ed snowden, espionage, eu embassies, leaks, nsa, nsa surveillance, surveillance

DOJ Guidelines: Inappropriate To Prosecute Leaking Gov't Information As 'Theft Of Gov't Property'

from the umm... dept

Well, this is interesting. Last week, of course, it was revealed that the DOJ has charged Ed Snowden for various crimes, including "theft of government property." In fact, Rep. Mike Rogers, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, seems to think this is the key charge, and argues (ridiculously) that the documents "belong to the people of the US" and that Snowden somehow "stole" them by giving the documents to those very same "people of the US."

However, as Declan McCullagh points out, the DOJ's own manual very clearly says that it is "inappropriate" to charge people who take government documents and information with theft of government property, in part because that might lead to unfair prosecution of whistleblowers:

Section 641 of Title 18 prohibits theft or receipt of stolen government information as well as theft of the documents, computer discs, etc., that contain the information. United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306, 309-10 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 70-71 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979); United States v. DiGilio 538 F.2d 972, 977-78 (3rd Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Lupo v. United States, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977). But see United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 451 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988). Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, the Criminal Division believes that it is inappropriate to bring a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641 when: (1) the subject of the theft is intangible property, i.e., government information owned by, or under the care, custody, or control of the United States; (2) the defendant obtained or used the property primarily for the purpose of disseminating it to the public; and (3) the property was not obtained as a result of wiretapping, (18 U.S.C. § 2511) interception of correspondence (18 U.S.C. §§ 1702, 1708), criminal entry, or criminal or civil trespass.

There are two reasons for the policy. First, it protects "whistle-blowers." Thus, under this policy, a government employee who, for the primary purpose of public exposure of the material, reveals a government document to which he or she gained access lawfully or by non-trespassory means would not be subject to criminal prosecution for the theft. Second, the policy is designed to protect members of the press from the threat of being prosecuted for theft or receipt of stolen property when, motivated primarily by the interest in public dissemination thereof, they publish information owned by or under the custody of the government after they obtained such information by other than trespassory means.

And yet, the "theft of government property" seems to be central to the government's charges against Snowden, suggesting that, yet again, the administration is really grasping at straws in trying to charge Snowden with anything it can dig up for daring to blow the whistle on the surveillance program.

Filed Under: doj, doj guidelines, ed snowden, edward snowden, espionage, leaks, prosecution, theft of government property, whistleblowers

Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?

from the no-place-for-logic dept

Over the past few years, we've found that Rep. Mike Rogers, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, has an incredible knack for spewing pure bullshit in defense of whatever he's supporting, rarely even bothering to make sure his statements are internally consistent. Still, his statements on Meet the Press this weekend take that nonsense to a new high. Rogers goes off on Snowden -- who he has already declared "is a traitor" -- arguing in favor of the "theft of government property" charges against Snowden by making the following statement:

"He has taken information that does not belong to him -- it belongs to the people of the United States."

Right. This information that "belongs to the people of the United States," which has been totally hidden from us, was actually finally given to the people of the United States -- to whom Rogers admits it belongs -- by Snowden. And, for that, he's a traitor? How, exactly, does that work? By Rogers' own argument, the information, before Snowden leaked it, was improperly withheld, thanks to people like Rep. Mike Rogers, from the people who own it. Thus, by Rogers' own logic, isn't it actually Mike Rogers who is the traitor in that he withheld crucial information that "belongs to the people of the United States"?

Of course, Rogers didn't stop there. No, no. He continued with his internally inconsistent, and blatantly ridiculous argument by saying that (1) terrorists now know what we're up to and are changing what they do, and (2) so little information has been revealed that everyone thinks they know what's happening, but don't. That makes no sense. If (1) is true, it suggests that the actual details of the program have been revealed and thus wrongdoers now know our methods. But, immediately, he changes course and says that no one really knows what's going on -- in which case he shouldn't be concerned about terrorists changing what they do, because it shouldn't stop the successful programs that no one knows about.

We have seen that bad guys overseas -- terrorists who are committing and plotting attacks on the United States and our allies -- have changed the way they operate. We've already seen that. To say that's not harmful to the national security of the United States, or our safety, is just dead wrong...

[....] This is the problem with having a thousand-piece puzzle, taking three or four pieces, and deciding that you're now an expert on what that picture looks like. You're gonna get it wrong. They're getting it wrong and it's dangerous.

So, let me get this straight. The revealed information means that reporters only see a few pieces of the puzzle so they're getting the story "dead wrong." But... the terrorists, who are reading these stories, are somehow, magically, getting the full picture (the one the reporters are getting dead wrong) and miraculously changing how they act to now avoid NSA surveillance dragnets? How's that work? Answer: it doesn't. Rogers is spewing bullshit.

We don't ask for much from our elected officials, but is it really too much to ask that they make statements that are internally consistent within the brief block of time they open their mouths to yap about some subject on which they're supposedly "in charge"?

Filed Under: david gregory, ed snowden, espionage, mike rogers, theft of government property, traitor

Irony Abounds: Snowden Charged For Spying When What He Really Did Was Reveal Massive Spying

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

Andy Borowitz, who writes popular satirical pieces, has a great one entitled, "U.S. Seemingly Unaware of Irony in Accusing Snowden of Spying," in response to the news from late last week that Edward Snowden has officially been charged under the espionage act. Like all great satire, it works because the underlying point is so true. Edward Snowden isn't a spy. He exposed massive spying by the US government. And yet he's the one charged with espionage?

At a press conference to discuss the accusations, an N.S.A. spokesman surprised observers by announcing the spying charges against Mr. Snowden with a totally straight face.

“These charges send a clear message,” the spokesman said. “In the United States, you can’t spy on people.”

It does seem quite ridiculous that the response to exposing massive spying to the public is to be accused of breaking a law designed to catch spies. But that's what you get when the government is so hell bent on spying on everyone and not letting anyone know about it.

Filed Under: ed snowden, edward snowden, espionage, leaks, public interest, spying

Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage By US Government

from the and-off-we-go dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but the Washington Post is reporting that US federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden charging him with espionage under the Espionage Act, along with theft and conversion of government property -- and have asked Hong Kong authorities to detain him. Just this morning, we were discussing the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers, prosecuting six different whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, twice the number of all other presidential administrations combined. Now we're up to number seven apparently. Update: The complaint has been unsealed (also embedded below).

Did Snowden break the law? Possibly -- but charging him with espionage is ridiculous, just as it has been ridiculous in many of these cases. Snowden wasn't doing this to "aid the enemy" but to alert the American public to the things that the administration itself had been publicly misleading to downright untruthful about. His actions have kicked off an important discussion and debate over surveillance society and how far it has gone today. That's not espionage. If he was doing espionage, he would have sold those secrets off to a foreign power and lived a nice life somewhere else. To charge him with espionage is insane.

In terms of process, the Washington Post explains:

By filing a criminal complaint, prosecutors have a legal basis to make the request of the authorities in Hong Kong. Prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment, probably also under seal, and can then move to have Snowden extradited from Hong Kong for trial in the United States.

Snowden, however, can fight the U.S. effort to have him extradited in the courts in Hong Kong. Any court battle is likely to reach Hong Kong's highest court and could last many months, lawyers in the United States and Hong Kong said.

It also notes that while the US and Hong Kong have an extradition treaty, there is an exception for "political offenses."

While this certainly was not unexpected, it's still a disappointing move from the administration. The crackdown on whistleblowers does not make the US look strong. It makes our government look weak, petty and vindictive in the face of actual transparency. It's shameful.

Filed Under: barack obama, doj, ed snowden, edward snowden, espionage, extradition, hong kong, nsa, nsa surveillance, whistleblowers