Late Friday, White House Announces That FISA Court Has Rubberstamped NSA Phone Record Collection, While Insisting It Wants Reform

from the uh-huh dept

As per its usual method of releasing news it would rather not talk about, on Friday evening the White House released the news that it had, once again, gotten a rubberstamp approval from the FISA Court for the NSA to collect in bulk basically all your phone records. As you probably know, this is just the latest in a long series of reapprovals by the FISA Court, which needs to reauthorize the program for limited periods of time each time the previous rubber stamp "expires." What hasn't made much sense in all of this is that President Obama announced a year ago that he wanted to end the bulk collection program, and as many people pointed out, there was an easy way to do so: just don't ask the FISA Court to renew the authority. But, rather than do that, the administration just keeps on asking (and getting) approval.

The excuse given in the released statement is that the White House wants Congress to force its hand to stop asking:

As the White House said [link to WH statement], the Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with the new Congress to implement the changes the President has called for. Given that legislation has not yet been enacted, and given the importance of maintaining the capabilities of the telephony metadata program, the government has sought a reauthorization of the existing program, as modified by the changes the President directed in January.

And, yes, the official announcement says "[link to WH statement]" -- because, hey, they're posting on Friday evening and might as well start the drinking early or something. It's not like this stuff matters. The rest of that claim is similarly misleading. The metadata program has not been shown to be important in any way. In fact, basically everyone who has looked at it from outside the intelligence community, including two separate government review bodies has admitted that there aren't any examples of the program actually being useful. So, it's hard to see what's so "important" about it.

But, really, this is all ridiculous. This is the same White House that is getting criticized all over the place for a variety of moves to take "executive action" where Congress is deadlocked. And, yet, here's a situation where literally the White House has all the power in the world to stop the program it claims it wants stopped -- and it says it needs Congress to act? That's not even close to believable.

The one "noteworthy" aspect to this latest rubberstamping is the end date. The newly approved authority runs until June 1, 2015, which is the date at which Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act sunsets and would no longer be law. This program exists under Section 215, so the government can't continue to collect those phone records after June 1, unless something happens. That "something" is the renewal of Section 215, and you better believe that the next few months are going to be a full on fight by the intelligence community and its supporters to spread as much fear as possible about why this program absolutely must be renewed. As you hear the scare stories, just remember that despite using this program for almost a decade there still isn't a single example of it being useful.

Filed Under: bulk records, fisa, fisa court, metadata, patriot act, section 215

Lawmaker Who Said Snowden Committed Treason, Now On The Other Side Of Metadata Surveillance

from the karma dept

Rep. Aaron Schock is frequently referred to as a "rising star" in Congress, but this week, the Associated Press reported on a scandal involving Schock and his use of taxpayer and campaign funds for things like flights on private jets (owned by key donors) and a Katy Perry concert. Frankly, I think some of the "scandal" here is a bit overblown. But what struck me is part of how the AP tracked these details about Schock down:

The AP tracked Schock's reliance on the aircraft partly through the congressman's penchant for uploading pictures and videos of himself to his Instagram account. The AP extracted location data associated with each image then correlated it with flight records showing airport stopovers and expenses later billed for air travel against Schock's office and campaign records.

In short, the metadata brought Schock down. Of course, as we've been describing, anyone who says that we shouldn't be concerned about the NSA's surveillance of metadata, or brushes it away as "just metadata," doesn't understand how powerful metadata can be. As former NSA/CIA boss Michael Hayden has said, the government kills people based on metadata.

But it does seem noteworthy that Schock was one of those who claimed that Ed Snowden's leaking of how the NSA collected metadata on nearly everyone amounted to treason. I wonder if he still feels that way...

Filed Under: aaron schock, campaign funds, metadata, taxpaywer funds
Companies: associated press, instagram

Germany's Spies Store 11 Billion Pieces Of Phone Metadata A Year -- And Pass On 6 Billion To The NSA

from the bad-sex dept

Given Germany's high-profile attachment to privacy, it's always interesting to hear about ways in which its spies have been ignoring that tradition. Here, for example, is a story in the German newspaper Die Zeit about the country's foreign intelligence agency BND gathering metadata from millions of phone records every day:

Zeit Online has learned from secret BND documents that five agency locations are involved in gathering huge amounts of metadata. Metadata vacuumed up across the world -- 220 million pieces of it every single day -- flows into BND branch offices in the German towns of Schöningen, Reinhausen, Bad Aibling and Gablingen. There, they are stored for between a week and six months and sorted according to still-unknown criteria.

Exactly where the BND obtains the data remains unclear. The Bundestag [German parliament] committee investigating the NSA spying scandal has uncovered that the German intelligence agency intercepts communications traveling via both satellites and Internet cables. The 220 million metadata are only one part of what is amassed from these eavesdropping activities. It is certain that the metadata only come from "foreign dialed traffic," in other words, from telephone conversations and text messages that are held and sent via mobile telephony and satellites.

As in the US and UK, the German spies attempt to pull the "it's only metadata, so it's not surveillance" trick:

Many people don't realize how much information can be derived from metadata -- and the BND is working hard to keep it that way. For example, during hearings before the Bundestag committee investigating the NSA affair, intelligence officials have consistently spoken about "routine traffic" whenever they have actually meant metadata. Given that the German word for "traffic" is the same as that for "intercourse," this has sounded more like bad sex and has aimed to obscure the fact that hidden behind it was comprehensive, groundless and massive surveillance.

What's more, the officials have argued that they are permitted to vacuum up this kind of routine traffic all over the world without any restrictions and to use it as they see fit. However, Peter Schaar doesn't share this view at all. Instead, the German government's former commissioner for data protection and freedom of information believes that metadata should also be protected by the basic right of privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications guaranteed by Article 10 of Germany’s Basic Law.

This long and interesting report is important for the insight it gives us about what the BND is up to -- despite Germany's stringent laws -- as well as the news that the German intelligence service passes 500 million pieces of metadata to the NSA every month. General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, famously said: "We kill people based on metadata." That means privacy-loving Germany could be implicated in some of those deaths. And there's another aspect to the story worth noting. Nowhere does Die Zeit say that this information comes from Edward Snowden. Once again, it looks as if his example is inspiring others to shine a little light on the murky world of surveillance.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: bnd, germany, metadata, nsa, privacy, surveillance

Rep. Jared Polis Calls For 24 Hour Surveillance On Senator Marco Rubio

from the because-polis-is-awesome dept

Rep. Jared Polis has a bit of a history of making hilarious, but incredibly on point, sarcastic and satirical suggestions in response to government officials saying something stupid. Last year, he asked the Treasury Department to ban dollar bills after Senator Joe Manchin asked the Treasury Department to ban Bitcoin. Polis, of course, took the same arguments Manchin used against Bitcoin and highlighted how dollar bills had the same characteristics.

His latest move is in response to Senator Marco Rubio's ridiculous and clueless call for greater levels of mass surveillance of Americans. Rubio calls for new laws to force tech companies to help the government spy on everyone and also a permanent extension of the controversial Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the part of the law that was twisted by the DOJ and the NSA to pretend it means they can demand every phone record on every American because they might be able to sniff through it all and find something interesting.

In response, Polis has asked the US Intelligence Community to begin "24 hour monitoring" of Senator Rubio:

“If Senator Rubio believes that millions of innocent Americans should be subject to intrusive and unconstitutional government surveillance, surely he would have no objections to the government monitoring his own actions and conversations,” said Rep. Polis. “Senator Rubio is asking for American technology companies to ‘cooperate with authorities,’ so I believe he will have no objection to authorities being given access to his electronic correspondence and metadata.  Maybe after his 2016 strategy documents are accidentally caught up in a government data grab, he’ll rethink the use of mass surveillance.”

Rubio’s op-ed called for “a permanent extension of the counterterrorism tools our intelligence community relies on” and said that the tactics were “legally and painstakingly established.” This is in stark contrast with the conclusions of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which found the data collection practices to be illegal, saying the Patriot Act “does not provide an adequate basis to support this program.”

This new focus on Senator Rubio shouldn’t require any additional legislation, as Senators have already been included in intelligence agency monitoring.

Nicely done. While he's at it, Polis might want to ask Rubio to release all of his own metadata publicly anyway. After all, if there's no big deal in snooping through metadata, Rubio shouldn't have any shame in revealing everyone he calls (or who calls him), everyone he emails and every website he visits. Right?

Filed Under: fisa, jared polis, marco rubio, metadata, patriot act, section 215, surveillance

President Obama Drops His Promise To Take Phone Metadata Away From NSA... But Perhaps That's Fine [Updated]

from the so-much-for-reform dept

Update: After talking to a few people about this, it's beginning to look like we may have overreacted to Reuters overreacting. The Reuters report focused on just one aspect of the proposal -- taking the data out of the NSA and giving it to a "trusted" third party. The problems that almost everyone pointed out at that time was that it's unclear how that "trusted third party" would actually be any safer than the NSA -- and many had assumed that idea was dropped long ago. Instead, everyone -- including the White House -- shifted the focus to just letting the telcos hang onto the data, like they do already, and hand it over when required by law. And the White House still supports that plan. In short, the only thing that was dropped was the bad idea of creating some new third party -- and that's an idea that most had assumed was dropped months ago for being nonsensical. We apologize for being misleading and not digging deep enough to understand the details. Original post below

As you may recall, about a year ago, President Obama gave a speech pledging some fairly weak NSA reforms in response to the Snowden revelations. There were some good things proposed, but he could have gone much further. One specific promise: the NSA would stop hoarding metadata on every phone call. As he said, it was time to "transition away" from using Section 215 of the Patriot Act to collect all those phone calls for the NSA to snoop through. Of course, he left the details up to Congress. And, Congress, in true Congress-like fashion, completely dropped the ball and failed to approve any of the proposed legislative changes that would have ended the metadata collection program.

So, President Obama is giving up. He apparently is breaking his promise to take the metadata away from the NSA:

President Barack Obama's administration has quietly abandoned a proposal it had been considering to put raw U.S. telephone call data collected by the National Security Agency under non-governmental control, several U.S. security officials said....

[....]

The Obama administration has decided, however, that the option of having a private third party collect and retain the telephone metadata is unworkable for both legal and practical reasons. "I think that's accurate for right now," a senior U.S. security official said.

It is neither unworkable for legal nor practical reasons. It's only unworkable because of political reasons in that Congress couldn't get its act together to bar the practice.

Furthermore, if President Obama had ever actually been serious about ending the program, he could have easily done it himself. That's because his administration has to go back to the FISA Court every few months to renew the program -- and he could have simply not had them do so. But, instead, the DOJ has just kept on renewing over and over again since then.

And thus, the NSA gets to keep on collecting all that metadata -- unless the courts magically put a stop to it or Section 215 isn't renewed by Congress in June of this year...

Filed Under: metadata, nsa, patriot act, president obama, section 215, surveillance

And Of Course DEA Had Its Own Database Of Metadata On All Calls From Inside The US To Certain Foreign Countries

from the because-of-course-it-did dept

It's both interesting and troubling to see just how frequently the DEA keeps popping up in various stories about the intelligence community and surveillance. We've written about how the DEA was getting classified information and then trained to "launder" the details of how it got it via parallel construction, how it had "embedded" AT&T employees who could help the DEA look up any info it needed and how it had its own HEMISPHERE database of call record info going back to 1987.

But it wasn't entirely clear how much information was in that database. And yet, in a recently revealed declaration from a DEA agent, it was revealed that the DEA had a database on every phone call from inside the US to certain countries outside the US, which it could then query using the typical RAS -- "reasonable articulable suspicion" -- standard that the NSA has used to query its giant database as well. That is, rather than targeting just suspicious calls, the DEA got a database of all calls to certain key countries.

This database [REDACTED] consisted of telecommunications metadata obtained from United States telecommunications service providers pursuant to administrative subpoenas served upon the service providers under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 876. This metadata related to international telephone calls originating in the United States and calling [REDACTED] designated foreign countries, one of which was Iran, that were determined to have demonstrated a nexus to international drug trafficking and related criminal activities. This metadata consisted exclusively of the initiating telephone number; the receiving telephone number; the date, time, and duration of the call; and the method by which the call was billed.

The program was shut down in September of 2013, just as the NY Times wrote about the program (funny, that...). As Marcy Wheeler notes, there's at least a decent chance this effort was just about trying to support sanctions against Iran (tracking if someone in the US is actually doing business with Iran) rather than drug trafficking. Either way, it shows yet another example of how much the government seems willing to scoop up tons of information on innocent people in hopes that there's a needle in all those stacks of hay.

Filed Under: dea, metadata, surveillance

Sickening: Police & Surveillance State Apologists Leap At Charlie Hebdo Opportunity To Advocate For More Spying, Less Freedom

from the surveillance-state-opportunists dept

In the wake of the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris yesterday, many people have been talking about various issues related to free speech and satire. We didn't have much to add to that discussion so we stayed out of it, but it's concerning to see that those who wish to suppress other civil liberties are jumping at the chance to use the attack yesterday as a jumping off point. Here are just a few examples. The NY Post ran an article saying that this proves the NYPD shouldn't have stopped its "Muslim Mapping" program:

...we believe the city should revisit its decision to dismantle the NYPD’s “Muslim Mapping” intelligence program.

The program was designed to provide exactly the kind of intelligence that would have been useful to police in Paris once they identified their three suspects in Wednesday’s terror attack. Namely, where they might go to find shelter or assistance.

If you don't recall, this effort was recently disbanded after multiple reports noted that it was completely useless, with not a single useful piece of evidence coming out of the entire program. As Julian Sanchez points out, there's something terrifying to the logic of "all evidence shows this project was totally useless, but we have to keep it going because of all these threats!"

And yet... the same thing is happening in other arenas as well. A year ago, both a court and the specially appointed task force set up to review the intelligence community's use of bulk metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act noted that there was absolutely no evidence at all that the bulk metadata collection was ever used to stop terrorist attacks.

And yet... former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden went on cable news on Thursday morning to use the Charlie Hebdo attack as an excuse for why the program was so useful. After spending about four minutes talking about how these kinds of random small attacks are likely to be the new way terrorists attack, he then defends metadata collection:

Let me add another thought here too: You know, I was talking to you guys about 12 months ago, about these massive amounts of metadata that NSA held in storage. That metadata doesn't look all that scary this morning and I wouldn't be surprised if the French services pick up cell phones associated with the attack and ask the Americans, 'where have you seen these phones active globally?'.

Actually, no, that metadata does still seem pretty scary, because it also includes a hell of a lot more than just those responsible for the attack. And, it's not like law enforcement and the intelligence community can't go back to the operators currently responsible and ask them for that data. There's still no reason to believe that the NSA needs to just be sitting on this data all the time. And, of course, it doesn't seem like all that metadata helped prevent any attack, now did it?

Either way, it's kind of sickening to see this kind of opportunist crap, seeking to strip civil liberties and privacy rights from people, at the same time so many people are focusing on the other side of the story, about protecting free speech.

Filed Under: attack, charlie hebdo, charlie hebdo attack, free speech, metadata, michael hayden, muslim mapping, muslims, ny post, nypd, paris, surveillance

Australians' Stored Metadata Could Be Used In Any Civil Case, Including Against Copyright Infringement

from the not-what-they-said dept

It was bad enough when the Australian government announced that it was joining the growing club of countries that would be retaining huge swathes of its citizens' metadata. But now people are beginning to realize that once that store of metadata exists it not only can, but probably will, be used for many other purposes that have nothing to do with the avowed aim of fighting terrorism. The first hint that this might happen came from a slip made by the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, reported here by Gizmodo Australia:

When asked if stored metadata could be used to combat piracy, Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, replied at a press conference that the stored data of Australians could be used for a whole number of things, including anti-piracy:

“Absolutely. Any interface or connection someone has over the internet, we need to be able to identify the parties to that collection. Illegal downloads, piracy, cyber crimes, cyber security. Our ability to investigate them is pinned to the ability to retrieve metadata,” Colvin told journalists.

Understandably, this caused such a storm that the Australian government tried to backtrack. The country's Attorney-General, George Brandis, was quoted in TechWorld Australia as saying:

"The mandatory metadata retention regime applies only to the most serious crime -- to terrorism, to international and transnational organised crime, to paedophilia, where the use of metadata has been particularly useful as an investigative tool," Brandis told ABC's Q&A program last night.

So that's a return to the original script: metadata is for fighting terrorism and serious crimes. But Brandis then went on to say:

The laws will apply "only to crime and only to the highest levels of crime," the attorney-general said. "Breach of copyright is a civil wrong. Civil wrongs have got nothing to do with this scheme."

The trouble with that argument is that infringing on copyright can also be a criminal offense, as the Australian Federal Police (AFP) site explains:

The AFP is committed to taking action against those believed to be the organisers, major importers and/or wholesalers of infringing products.

The AFP is committed to building partnerships with industry and other law enforcement agencies to combat IP crime and wherever possible ascertain links to organised crime.

Moreover, the recent leak of the TPP IP chapter shows that one of its measures aims to lower the bar for the criminalization of copyright infringement, even when there is no commercial intent:

Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale. {For the purposes of this Article, [US propose, CA/MY oppose: such acts of [NZ: willful] copyright or related rights piracy {on a commercial scale} include at least:] [CA/MY propose: In respect of copyright or related rights piracy, acts carried out on a commercial scale include at least:] [CL propose:181] [182]

(a) acts carried out for commercial advantage or financial gain[CA propose:183]; and

(b) significant acts [CA oppose: of copyright or related rights piracy], not carried out for commercial advantage or financial gain, that have a substantial prejudicial impact on the interests of the copyright or related rights owner in relation to the marketplace.} [AU propose:184]

Since it's still a draft, that's a bit of a mess, but the important parts are at the beginning -- "Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied" -- and at the end, where Australia wants criminal penalties even if "not carried out for commercial advantage or financial gain", but simply if they have "substantial prejudicial impact on the interests of the copyright or related rights owner in relation to the marketplace". It's not hard to see how uploading a single music file might be claimed to do that, since potentially it could be copied thousands of times. That non-commercial upload would therefore be subject to criminal penalties under TPP, which opens up the possibility of using stored metadata to track down the person responsible.

The transcript of an interesting radio program from the Australian broadcaster ABC reveals another way in which stored metadata might be applied to cases involving alleged copyright infringement:

the Government not using metadata to fight internet piracy is one thing, the rights holders themselves using the metadata trove to expose customer details is an entirely different scenario.

[Australia's Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull] admitted as much this morning, saying that under legislation, stored metadata would be accessible by third parties via a court order. That could mean that copyright holders could sue ISPs for customer information, forcing them to reveal which user was responsible for a download, opening up the user to claims for damages.

But this route could be used for any civil case, despite claims from the Australian government that data retention is only about serious crimes. A lawyer who works for Marque Lawyers, the law firm acting for the copyright owners of the film Dallas Buyers Club, explained on the program:

Any civil litigation where a question arises about a person's conduct or activities or where they've been and when they've been there, which often can arise in all sorts of civil cases. This kind of information could be extremely useful.

...

It's historically been quite difficult to get information out of telcos because they hold an enormous amount of data and not always in the most easily accessible way and they don't like handing it over. But if they're forced under this new regime into a protocol which establishes a very clear and consistent methodology for storing data for a particular period, then that becomes a much more easily accessible resource and much more difficult to say, "Oh, you know, we can't find it." Yeah, I think, I think it'll be quite popular.

It will doubtless be especially popular among copyright trolls, who will be able to use it to track down people before sending in their "speculative" invoices....

Retaining everyone's metadata in order to tackle terrorism was always a bad idea, given the attendant risks, but it looks like it could turn into a legal and political nightmare once the lawyers start applying to Australian courts for routine access to this highly-private information. That's yet another good reason not to proceed with this ill-advised scheme at all.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: australia, copyright, data retention, george brandis, metadata, piracy

NSA Cheerleader Ben Wittes Takes A Written Swing At The Anti-NSA Crowd And Misses His Target Entirely

from the pro-surveillance-jackassery dept

Benjamin Wittes, adjunct NSA apologist at the Brookings Institution and the most prolific blogger at Lawfare, has just unloaded a post meant to portray those opposed to the NSA as simpleminded strawmen/women who are triggered by certain letters rather than by the critically-important nuances.

Here's the gist of it, which I can hopefully convey without copy-pasting the entirety of the short, extremely self-satisfied piece.

I was at the National Security Agency yesterday giving a Constitution Day speech and I learned details of a shocking collection program: The government is bulk collecting all traffic on Twitter. Under a program menacingly called “Bulk Data in Social Media” and abbreviated—appropriately enough—as BDSM [insert proxy self-amused snicker here], Twitter has been providing all public traffic since 2010 for a massive government database that, as of early last year, contained 170 billion tweets. The goal of this program? To “collect the story of America” and to “acquire collections that will have research value” to analysts and others.

Those of you who are not the morons Wittes makes you out to be will already know where this is headed. Wittes breathlessly adds in italics that Twitter does this voluntarily without a court order or FISA court review.

Then he drops the "bombshell."

Why would NSA do all this?

It wouldn’t. The agency I’m talking about here is the Library of Congress.

Yes, the Library of Congress is collecting every Tweet with the blessing of Twitter itself, and has been doing so for years. It was in all the papers. Those of us opposed to the NSA's bulk collections are supposed to stare deep inside ourselves as Wittes fumblingly twists the rhetorical knife.

So here’s the question: If you were shocked when you read the first paragraph of this post and relieved when you read that the agency doing all this collection is not NSA but the good guys over at the Library of Congress, and that the good guys are actually planning to make that data available widely, why did you have those reactions? And do those reactions make sense?

First of all, no one with any amount of sense would claim that the government can't access or collect public messages on a public platform. That's an expectation we live with when we use these services. But the collection of every public tweet for archival and research purposes is far different than the collection of private metadata and communications for the purposes of rooting out threats to the nation's security. (Or fighting drug wars, etc.)

It's called intent. Wittes should look that up. Also, he should perhaps look into the difference between public and private info if he's got the time.

While many people use social media to lay bare certain aspects of their lives, a high percentage of them do not reveal everything, or at least not as much as "just metadata" can reveal. Many intimate details about a person's life can be revealed by the data they "voluntarily" hand over to third parties. Cops can track people's movements with license plate data. The NSA can peer deeply into a person's life with bulk phone records. People don't "volunteer" this information, but there's no way to opt out. Vehicles travel outside on public roads. Phone connection data is collected because phone companies need to track usage for billing (and are required to do so by the federal government).

Billions of tweets are all given up voluntarily by Twitter users. Even those who regret tweets they've sent or accounts they made still know in the back of their mind it's been archived somewhere. It's public speaking on a public platform.

Which brings us to another major difference between the two: transparency.

The Library of Congress has addressed this collection program publicly a number of times. Twitter also publicly announced this partnership. If anyone wanted to avoid being part of this collection, they could simply avoid using the platform -- a choice more realistic than the government's continued assertion that travel and communication are "luxuries" in which we wlllingly exchange our rights for convenience.

What has the NSA announced? Not a goddamn thing. It's only talking now because someone took its secret programs and spread them all over the internet. Now it has to address these issues, but even in this era of forced openness, it still deploys a tremendous amount of black ink.

I'm sure Wittes' post garnered a few chortles from like-minded individuals (including some he heavily elbowed in the ribs), but the whole setup is disingenuous. It conveniently ignores crucial differences between the two forms of collections in hopes of portraying the anti-NSA crowd as ultimately no more complex than single-celled organisms. The good news is that those of us on this side of the divide are constantly underestimated by those whose views skew more towards Wittes'.

This sort of presumptive arrogance is what allowed a government contractor to walk out the door with thousands of classified documents from the top national security entity in the world -- one with a massive budget and the best minds the government could hire. The NSA simply believed nothing of that scope would happen to No Such Agency, even with an obviously lax set of internal controls. Now it's been burned. And yet, its apologists still think they can talk down to everyone on the other side of argument.

Filed Under: ben wittes, communications, library of congress, metadata, nsa, private, public, sharing, surveillance, volunteering
Companies: twitter

New Zealand PM Releases Documents... That Don't Actually Discuss GCSB Mass Surveillance

from the wait,-what? dept

So we had just posted New Zealand Prime Minister John Key insulting the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, referring to him as a "henchman" and "a loser" for showing up in New Zealand to reveal that, contrary to Key's own claims, the country's GCSB (local equivalent of the NSA) had been engaged in mass surveillance of New Zealand residents. The documents Greenwald revealed showed how the Kiwi government was being pressured by the NSA to pass a law to fully "legalize" the program for mass surveillance of metadata. Further support to Greenwald's claims was provided in an article written by Ed Snowden, discussing just how easy it was to go surfing through the metadata collected on New Zealanders by GCSB.

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Key had said that once Greenwald revealed what he had, he would declassify a set of documents proving that Greenwald was wrong. Well, now Key has, in fact, declassified a set of documents from the GCSB... and they don't actually discuss what Greenwald or Snowden were talking about. Instead, they look like some internal discussions of why GCSB needed a (dangerous) program that would allow GCSB to try to spot and deal with foreign cyberattacks (similar to what the NSA wanted to do in the US, but which banks on Wall St. rejected).

So, basically all that Key has revealed is that GCSB supported an overly broad cyberattack plan that would let the GCSB take it upon itself to deal with cyberattacks -- a plan so insane that even the US has rejected it -- in part because it would massively increase surveillance. So, Key has revealed secretly approved plans to increase GCSB surveillance, while pretending he's debunking increased GCSB surveillance. And, yet, the documents don't even address any of Greenwald and Snowden's actual claims. When asked about that Key appears to have done his standard childish pouting, refusing to answer about specifics:

"There is not, and never has been, mass surveillance of New Zealanders undertaken by the GCSB.

He would not discuss XKEYSCORE, ''we don't discuss the specific programmes the GCSB may, or may not use''.

''But the GCSB does not collect mass metadata on New Zealanders, therefore it is clearly not contributing such data to anything or anyone," Mr Key said.

Frankly, this is a bit of a let down. Given the documents that Greenwald revealed on Monday, there was still the slight possibility that changes had happened along the way and people had rethought a bad plan. So I was wondering if Key might actually reveal something miraculous like that. Instead, it seems like he's trying a sleight of hand trick by declassifying and releasing unrelated documents (that actually reveal a secret surveillance expansion different from the one Greenwald revealed) and hoping no one notices. Interesting strategy. It seems to assume that the New Zealand populace doesn't actually pay attention to any details, which seems like a risky move.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, ed snowden, gcsb, glenn greenwald, john key, kim dotcom, metadata, nsa, surveillance