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

Ed Snowden Leaves Hong Kong, Seeks Asylum In Ecuador, As US Officials Flip Out

from the many-fists-were-shaken-impotently-that-day... dept

Edward Snowden had a few options available to him in Hong Kong despite facing extradition for espionage and theft charges. Beyond the appeals process that would have held off the inevitable for several years, there were certain built-in safety nets (the "political offense exception" built into the US-Hong Kong extradition treaty and protections against "inhumane treatment" via the UN) ihat could have seen him avoid extradition altogether.

Those no longer matter as Snowden is on his way to Ecuador, via Moscow and Cuba, accompanied by a member of Wikileaks' legal team. The US government was informed about Snowden's departure roughly five hours after he boarded an Aeroflot plane headed to Moscow. According to the statement released by Hong Kong officials, they had no choice but to let Snowden go.

Edward Snowden has left Hong Kong on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and normal channel, and Hong Kong has informed the US Government of his departure...

Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the Hong Kong Government requested additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government's request met relevant legal conditions.

As the Hong Kong Government did not yet have sufficient information to process the request, there was no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.

It's a rarely seen event, but someone has just told the US government, "Your papers are not in order." That's a hell of a thing to wake up to, especially if you're one of the members of the "harmed" parties. (Supposedly Snowden's actions would harm all Americans from the way the anti-whistleblower contingent makes it sound, but really it's just the NSA and the FBI that have been caught with their particulars exposed.)

Hong Kong officials added one more paragraph to its statement, one which explains why Snowden was given a five-hour head start.

At the same time, it has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. It will follow up on the matter, to protect the legal rights of people of Hong Kong.

In other words, Hong Kong finds the US government's actions more problematic than Snowden's actions, so have fun catching your boy!

Snowden's escape will be an embarrassment to those who publicly stated their confidence that Hong Kong would comply with the orders.

The White House appears to have been caught flat-footed by the latest manoeuvres. On Saturday, President Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, told CBS news he expected Hong Kong to arrest Snowden because it "has been a historically good partner of the United States in law enforcement matters and we expect them to comply with the treaty in this case".

In fact, the US government is looking particularly hapless, what with its stern demands to Hong Kong before Snowden left, followed by similarly pathetic demands to Russia to not let Snowden hop a flight onto his next destination.

So, Snowden is on his way to Ecuador, seeking asylum in the same country that opened up its doors, heart and embassy Hide-a-bed to Julian Assange. His itinerary was hardly direct, but it made stops in nations unlikely to greet him at the airport with handcuffs and a seat on the next flight to the United States. Traveling to Russia and Cuba made it much less likely that someone would "officially" recognize the fact that the US government had revoked Snowden's passport prior to his boarding the flight to Russia. (Of all Snowden's worries, traveling with a revoked passport has to be so far down the list as to be imperceptible.)

He's left behind a wealth of information, all of which the US government would rather have kept secret. A trail of angry politicians and security officials also follow close behind, decrying his every move, including CISPA sponsor Mike Rogers.

"When you look at it, every one of these nations is hostile to the United States," Rogers said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"If he could go to North Korea and Iran, he could round out his 'government oppression tour.' So when you think about what he says he wants and what his actions are, it defies logic."

I doubt Snowden sympathizes with oppressive governments, but he does know who's more likely to ignore US pleas, threats or attempted intervention. Considering what's happened to other whistleblowers, the US government looks a bit oppressive itself, at least from Snowden's viewpoint. Still, Rogers thinks Snowden should just come home and get what's coming to him.

"If he really believed he did something good, he should get on a plane, come back, and face the consequences of his actions," Rogers said.

His statement makes no sense. Rogers has already declared Snowden guilty as charged and seems to think Snowden should martyr himself for his cause via the No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Whistleblower Retribution Plan that George Bush and (especially) Barack Obama are so fond of. Whistleblowers like Snowden should "face the consequences" while the government's excesses and overreach should be allowed to continue on unpunished in perpetuity.

There is a potential downside to Snowden's actions. By seeking asylum in a country with a somewhat antagonistic relationship with the US, there's always the possibility that he'll be used as a pawn when politically convenient. Ecuador has already proven it has a rather flexible definition of "asylum," one which allows it to suddenly revoke "refugee" status if certain governments ask nicely. Given the right circumstances, his hosts could decide to offer his freedom in exchange for something it really wants, or to avoid something it doesn't.

Filed Under: cuba, ecuador, ed snowden, edward snowden, extradition, hong kong, mike rogers, moscow, russia

NSA Claims Surveillance Programs Aided The Stopping Of 50 Attacks; Details Lacking

from the obfuscate,-obfuscate,-obfuscate dept

In a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee today, NSA boss Keith Alexander once again claimed that the big NSA surveillance programs had stopped terrorist attacks. Rather than the "dozens" he stated last week, today it became "more than 50 potential terrorist events." Of course, as is typical, both the questions (asked by NSA supporters) and the answers were pretty carefully choreographed. Digging in, you find out that Alexander was specifically referring to PRISM, and not the (much more worrisome) dragnet of all phone records. On that program, there doesn't appear to be any actual data on what it was used for. On top of that, when asked about whether or not these programs were essential or necessary to stopping those attacks, as compared to other programs, no one would say that they were necessary or essential.

The other careful choice of words was people would ask about whether or not phone calls had been recorded under these particular programs, but not other programs. When Deputy Attorney General James Cole was specifically asked about other programs, he responded that that was classified information. Make of that what you will. Cole also claimed that the program to collect all phone numbers "is not a program that's off the books, that's been hidden away." Of course, if that were true, why are so many people -- including politicians who supposedly have oversight over the program -- so surprised about it? How come there has been no reporting on it? How come, when asked about it, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper said "no" to whether or not information was collected on millions of Americans? It certainly sounds "hidden away."

Meanwhile, the really shameful performance came from Rep. Mike Rogers, who led the hearing, who again claimed that Ed Snowden both was lying and that his revelations weakened American security by revealing secrets to enemies. And then he pulled out this whopper:

"It is at times like these when our enemies within become almost as damaging as the enemies on the outside. It is critically important to protect sources and methods so we aren't giving the enemy our playbook."

So, again, no one understands the programs revealed, because Snowden's leaked info is wrong... and now our enemies know what we're doing... and Snowden is "almost as damaging" as those who wish to attack us. None of that makes any sense at all.

In the end, though, it's more of the same. Even if we could say that these programs were useful in stopping a potential attack, what we don't know is if the program was necessary to do so. We don't know what sort of collateral damage was caused. We don't know if traditional methods of investigation would have worked just as well, with no violations of privacy for Americans. We're just being told on faith to "trust the NSA."

Filed Under: congress, ed snowden, james clapper, james cole, keith alexander, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, prism

CISPA's Sponsors Can't Keep Their Story Straight: If Snowden's Leaks Are False, How Do They Harm America?

from the keep-trying dept

We already discussed how bizarre it is to see NSA defenders trying to claim both that this story is nothing new and a huge danger to America, but that kind of thing continues. Witness two of Congress' biggest NSA defenders, Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger -- the two sponsors of CISPA -- try to claim that Snowden was both lying and exposing secrets that harm us all.

"He was lying," Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

"He's done tremendous damage to the country where he was born and raised and educated," Ruppersberger said.

So, um, if he's lying and the information he leaked is not true, then how is he doing "tremendous damage" to the country? I guess the "damage" could be to our reputation as a freedom loving country that respects the 4th Amendment and basic rights to privacy, but that doesn't seem to be what Ruppersberger is claiming.

"Some people are saying that he's a hero. He's broken the law," Ruppersberger said. "We have laws in the United States for whistle-blowers, for people that think there's an injustice being done. All he had to do was raise his hand. ... Under the whistle-blower law, he is protected. Yet he chose to go to China."

Er... except we've seen exactly what happens to NSA whistleblowers who go that route. They get completely ignored and then charged with trumped up claims of leaking secrets anyway, and threatened with over 30 years in jail. It's pretty clear that just "raising his hand" doesn't work and actually puts you even more at risk. Furthermore, the current "whistle-blower" law is rarely used and even more rarely successful, with whistleblowers almost never winning their cases.

"I hope that we don't decide that our national security interests are going to be determined by a high-school dropout who had a whole series of both academic troubles and employment troubles," Rogers said.

Yup. The best Rogers can do is try to smear the guy, rather than respond to what he actually leaked, which is apparently all lies, but threatens us all. Sorry, Rogers, but the story doesn't hold up.

Filed Under: cispa, dutch ruppersberger, ed snowden, mike rogers

Even The AP Is Calling Bull On Government Claims Of PRISM Helping Stop NYC Subway Bomb

from the when-you-can't-even-convince-them... dept

We've already explained how some NSA supporters, including Rep. Mike Rogers and Senator Dianne Feinstein, are trying to defend PRISM and other NSA surveillance efforts by saying that it stopped a NYC subway bombing but their claims don't seem to hold up under scrutiny. Now even the Associated Press is calling out those statements as highly questionable, which is somewhat amazing for the AP, as it normally loves to just present "both sides of the story" and then let you decide what's real. But the article linked above actually digs in and points out where the claims by the NSA's defenders don't seem to add up to anything.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said investigators "found backpacks with bombs." Really, the bombs hadn't been completed and the backpacks the FBI found were unrelated to the plot.

Feinstein said the FBI had Zazi under surveillance for six months. Court testimony showed Zazi was watched only for about two weeks before he was arrested.

But there's a much bigger point that the AP makes. Even if the claim was somehow true that PRISM was useful, nowhere does that claim show how a standard warrant wouldn't have provided the same information:

That's because, even before the surveillance laws of 2007 and 2008, the FBI had the authority to - and did, regularly - monitor email accounts linked to terrorists. The only difference was, before the laws changed, the government needed a warrant.

To get a warrant, the law requires that the government show that the target is a suspected member of a terrorist group or foreign government, something that had been well established at that point in the Zazi case.

In other words, even if PRISM was used, there's no evidence that it was needed, because the NSA could have easily obtained the same information through traditional means -- getting a warrant -- and without potentially violating the privacy of millions of others.

Filed Under: dianne feinstein, exaggeration, james clapper, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, nyc subway bomb, prism, warrants, zazi

NSA Defenders Claim PRISM Helped Stop NYC Subway Bombing; Actual Evidence Suggests It Didn't

from the so-much-for-that dept

You knew this was coming. In the wake of the revelations about the NSA surveillance program, defenders of the system are now trying to claim that PRISM was responsible for stopping a plot to bomb the NYC subways by Najibullah Zazi. However, as people looked into the details, they pointed out that this didn't make much sense and, further, that detailed public reports already make it clear that traditional police work had uncovered Zazi's plot, not PRISM.

The details of terror investigations are not always laid out this clearly in public; but they appear to belie the notion, advanced by anonymous government officials Friday, that sweeping access to millions of email accounts played an important roil in foiling the subway attack. Instead, this is the sort investigation made possible by ordinary warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; authorities appear simply to have been monitoring the Pakistani email account that had been linked to terrorists earlier that year.

That report, by Buzzfeed's Ben Smith has a lot more details.

Of course, there's a separate point in all of this: even if PRISM had been used to stop this plot, that says nothing about whether or not the program is appropriate. I'm sure that we could stop all sorts of terrorist plots and activity if the US government was able to send soldiers door to door searching every house in the country and installing cameras inside our homes. But, most everyone would agree that's a blatant violation of our rights.

Filed Under: fisa, mike rogers, najibullah zazi, nsa, nsa surveillance, prism

Want To Destroy Any Hope Of Serious Cybersecurity? Give The DOJ Its Desired Backdoor Wiretaps On All Communications

from the stupid-ideas dept

The Obama administration has supposedly been "considering" the latest version of the DOJ's plan to require backdoor wiretapping abilities in any form of digital communication. If you don't recall, the FBI asks for this basically every year. The latest version would lead to fines for any company that doesn't build in a backdoor wiretapping ability. We've been pointing out for quite some time that putting in such backdoors only makes us all less safe, because those with malicious intent will find and use those backdoors.

A new report has been released, put together by some of the best known technologists and security experts out there, saying that the plan, as being considered would effectively undermine any cybersecurity regime. At a time when the administration and Congress keep insisting that we need better cybersecurity, to undermine it all with wiretapping backdoors would be ridiculous. And let's not even begin discussing how this would play out if it passed and number one CISPA backer Mike Rogers then became head of the FBI.

Among the report's authors are names you might recognize, like Ed Felten, Peter Neumann, Bruce Schneier and Phil Zimmerman. You can read the full report (pdf) to see all the details. As Ed Felten told the NY Times:

“It’s a single point in the system through which all of the content can be collected if they can manage to activate it,” said Edward W. Felten, a computer science professor at Princeton and one of the authors of the report... “That’s a security vulnerability waiting to happen, as if we needed more,” he said.

Once again, all of this suggests that the efforts around "cybersecurity" have always been more of a cover story to try to make it easier for law enforcement to access data, rather than any legitimate effort at improving security.

Filed Under: backdoors, bruce schneier, cybersecurity, doj, ed felten, fbi, mike rogers, peter neumann, phil zimmerman, wiretaps

CISPA Sponsor Mike Rogers May Go On To Lead The FBI

from the sure-that-having-cispa-in-place-would-help dept

We've often heard stories of politicians passing legislation soon before they left office, only to have that very same legislation help them in their next job (coincidentally, we're sure). So it does seem interesting that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main champion behind CISPA, the privacy-destroy cybersecurity bill, is apparently a top candidate to head the FBI -- so much so that the FBI Agents Association, representing 12,000 FBI agents, has officially stated that it would like him to take the job. I'm sure it would be much easier to run the FBI if it could have companies violate the privacy of their users without any possible liability (even if they promised to protect that privacy), which is exactly what CISPA would allow. For what it's worth, there are a number of other candidates for the job, though it's somewhat horrifying to see one other top candidate be Neil MacBride. He's the former "anti-piracy" VP for the Business Software Alliance, who is now the US Attorney who has been driving the case against Kim Dotcom. Just imagine what kind of FBI there would be under his watch...

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, fbi, mike rogers

Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing...

from the no-conflict,-no-interest dept

It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers' wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It's somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.

It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can't even keep his own story straight about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement. Wrong and insulting.

Of course, as we've noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money. Mainly, money to big defense contractors aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive "solutions" to the cybersecurity "problem" -- a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as "a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world."

Hmm. Sounds like a company like that would benefit greatly to seeing a big ramp up in cybersecurity FUD around the globe, and, with it, big budgets by various government agencies to spend on such things. Indeed, just a few months ago, Rogers penned an article for Washington Life Magazine all about evil hackers trying to "steal information." In it, there's a line that might sound a wee-bit familiar, referring to the impression of hackers as being "the teenager in his or her parent's basement with bunny slippers and a Mountain Dew." Apparently, both of the Rogers really have a thing about teens in basements. The article is typical FUD, making statements with no proof, including repeating the NSA's ridiculous allegation that hackers have led to the "greatest transfer of wealth in American history." It's such a good line, except that it's completely untrue. The top US companies have recently admitted to absolutely no damage from such attacks. The article also lumps in "hacktivists" like Anonymous, as if they're a part of this grand conspiracy that needs new laws.

Tellingly, in the print version of Washington Life that this article appeared in, which you can see embedded below, you'll note that there's a side bar right next to her article about the importance of passing cybersecurity legislation in Congress. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere at all? The fact that Kristi Rogers, author of the fear-mongering article, happens to be married to Rep. Mike Rogers, the guy in charge of pushing through cybersecurity legislation. That sure seems like a rather key point, and a major conflict of interest that neither seemed interested in disclosing. Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she's now the "managing director of federal government affairs and public policies" at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she's apparently focused on "executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors." I'm sure having CISPA in place will suddenly create plenty of demand for such problem solving.

A few months ago, on one of his FUD-filled talks about why we need cybersecurity, Rogers claimed that it was all so scary that he literally couldn't sleep at night until CISPA was passed due to an "unusual source" threatening us. The whole statement seemed odd, until you realize that his statement came out at basically the same time as his wife's fear-mongering article about cybersecurity. I guess when your pillow talk is made up boogeyman stories about threats that don't actually exist, it might make it difficult to fall asleep.

Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard -- and we're not suggesting it wasn't -- this is exactly the kind of situation that Larry Lessig has referred to as soft corruption. It's not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less. At the very least, in discussing all of this stuff, when Mrs. Rogers is writing articles that help the push for CISPA, it seems only fair to disclose that she's married to the guy pushing for the bill. And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing. And yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.

Filed Under: cispa, conflicts of interest, cybersecurity, kristi rogers, lobbying, mike rogers

Latest CISPA 'Privacy' Amendment Is More Of The Same: Minor Changes Dressed Up As Real Solutions

from the same-old-thing-with-a-new-coat-of-paint dept

Update: It has become a little unclear what the status of this amendment is now. Yesterday we heard that it had passed, but now it seems to have been changed, and it's back up for debate on the floor. We'll get you more updates on whether or not it goes through, and the latest changes, as soon as we can.

In the latest round of changes to CISPA, the House passed a new amendment that supposedly (according to CISPA supporters) addresses the privacy and civil liberty concerns about the bill. The amendment (pdf and embedded below) ostensibly establishes civilian agency control (through Homeland Security) over information shared under CISPA, since many people are reasonably worried about all this data ending up in the hands of the NSA. Unfortunately, as the EFF determined in their initial analysis, it doesn't really change anything—it just lets the DHS go along for the ride:

The amendment in question does not strike or amend the part of CISPA that actually deals with data flowing from companies to other entitities, including the federal government. The bill still says that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes...share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government." The liability immunity provisions also remain.

While this amendment does change a few things about how that information is treated within the government, it does not amend the primary sharing section of the bill and thus would not prevent companies from sharing data directly with military intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency if they so choose.

Indeed, the text of the amendment appears to create a significant role for the DHS in information sharing procedures, but gives it little power in terms of actually protecting privacy or filtering information—the amendment mandates that information still be shared with other agencies in realtime, and it still appears to allow companies and organizations to bypass the DHS entirely.

A portion of the amendment outlines certain privacy guidelines, but they are the same as those we discussed before: filled with enough release valves and escape routes to render them virtually meaningless, closer to a list of "best practices" than actual rules. The fact is that, despite what the bill's supporters and some of the media reporting on it would have you believe, the core problems with CISPA have not been addressed, nor have any of the "efforts" in that direction amounted to much more than a smokescreen. With a final CISPA vote looming at any time, it's never been more important to voice your opposition to the bill.

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, mike rogers