Obtained Emails Show NSA Officials Knew In Advance Of GCHQ's Plans To Destroy The Guardian's Computers

from the nice-press-freedom-you-got-here...-it's-be-a-shame-if-something-happened-to dept

Last year, in a move simultaneously symbolic, thuggish and completely futile, GCHQ officials forced The Guardian to destroy computers "containing" Snowden documents. The fact that the documents were also housed elsewhere (including at two American newspapers) mattered little. The point was simple: we can get to you. In the service of "national security," the GCHQ came down on the journalistic entity with something straight out of the Running A Dictatorship For Fun And Profit handbook. Exact words deployed: "You've had your debate. There's no need to write more."

NSA officials notably refused to comment on the GCHQ's actions, perhaps hoping critics would view the silence as disapproval or, at the very least, pointedly not condoning the hardware destruction. The White House publicly condemned the destruction, stating that it was "hard to imagine" this sort of thing happening domestically. That was just the PR front, apparently. Documents obtained by the AP show that NSA officials and administration staff were not only notified in advance of the GCHQ's plans, but also offered their support of this action.

General Keith Alexander, the then director of the NSA, was briefed that the Guardian was prepared to make a largely symbolic act of destroying documents from Edward Snowden last July, new documents reveal.

The revelation that Alexander and Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, were advised on the Guardian's destruction of several hard disks and laptops contrasts markedly with public White House statements that distanced the US from the decision.

GCHQ's attempted prior restraint found support from the upper levels of the NSA. Presumably, officials knew how empty the effort was (what with documents having been spread to the New York Times, ProPublica and others), but that still didn't stop at least one official from greeting the GCHQ's plans with enthusiasm.

An email to Alexander from Rick Ledgett, now deputy director of the NSA, has the subject line "Guardian data being destroyed", and is dated 19 July, a day before the destruction of the files. Most is heavily redacted, but Ledgett remarks: "Good news, at least on this front."

Ledgett has a bizarre definition of "good news." All this move did was confirm that the GCHQ cared more about pretending it could somehow regain control of the situation than it did about freedom of the press. These obtained documents show the NSA's top men think the same way. Given these two countries' close surveillance relationship, this news comes as a bit of a surprise (considering earlier administration statements) but certainly not as a shock.

When one "free world" country applauds another's low-rent thug tactics (even in secrecy), the message is clear: the public needs to be taught not to question things above its pay grade.

Filed Under: destruction, gchq, hard drive, keith alexander, nsa, rick ledgett, surveillance
Companies: the guardian

IRS To Public: You Need To Hold Onto Your Records For 2-7 Years; We'll Just Trash Ours Whenever We Feel Like It

from the hire-an-accountant-and-marvel-at-our-lack-of-accountability dept

How long should I keep my records?

Note: Keep copies of your filed tax returns. They help in preparing future tax returns and making computations if you file an amended return.

1. You owe additional tax and situations (2), (3), and (4), below, do not apply to you; keep records for 3 years.
2. You do not report income that you should report, and it is more than 25% of the gross income shown on your return; keep records for 6 years.
3. You file a fraudulent return; keep records indefinitely.
4. You do not file a return; keep records indefinitely.
5. You file a claim for credit or refund* after you file your return; keep records for 3 years from the date you filed your original return or 2 years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later.
6. You file a claim for a loss from worthless securities or bad debt deduction; keep records for 7 years.

Keep all employment tax records for at least 4 years after the date that the tax becomes due or is paid, whichever is later.

Source: IRS

How long should the IRS hold onto emails that are considered part of public records?

Answer: until the hard drive is recycled.

Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner's crashed hard drive has been recycled, making it likely the lost emails of the lightening rod in the tea party targeting controversy will never be found, according to multiple sources.

"We've been informed that the hard drive has been thrown away," Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a brief hallway interview.

Citizens, the burden of proof lies on you when the IRS starts asking questions. You retain these records or bear the consequences. When the IRS loses two years of email, it simply rehashes what happens, shrugs its shoulders and waits for the NSA's Glomar on Lois Lerner's email metadata.

On one hand, at the point it was thrown away, those currently being investigated by Congress probably had no idea the emails contained would be requested two years later. On the other hand, the agency has the specific duty to retain this information to remain in compliance with federal public records regulations. Scrapping a hard drive doesn't sound like the move of an agency interested in maintaining public records.

Lerner's crashed hard drive was subpoenaed by Darrell Issa and computer forensics experts were fairly certain they could recover the data from the drive. But the drive no longer exists and it appears the IRS never made an effort to recover anything IRS-related from the drive.

Lerner, however, seemed greatly concerned about the recovery of certain items unrelated to the public records she was supposed to be maintaining. Here's a screenshot of an email discussing the crash, posted by John Hinderaker at Power Line.


If you can't see this screenshot, it says the following:

It was nice to meet you this morning -- although I would have preferred it was under different circumstances. I'm taking you up on your offer to try and recapture my lost personal files. My computer skills are pretty basic, so nothing fancy -- but there were some documents in the files that are irreplaceable. Whatever you can do to help, is greatly appreciated…

As Hinderaker points out, Lerner seems dismayed to have lost some personal files, but is completely unconcerned that years of emails may have been destroyed as well.

It is remarkable that Lerner does not say: "Oh no! My hard drive crashed, and the IRS's only copy of two years' worth of my highly important work has been lost!" No: she is concerned about "my lost personal files," because "there were some documents in the files that are irreplaceable." That is a clearly stated and entirely reasonable concern, but it has nothing to do with losing the agency's only record of two years of work.

As more details come out, the IRS is looking worse and worse. But these additional details are pushing the perception more into the "expected bureaucratic incompetence" area, rather than towards "large-scale conspiracy to destroy evidence."

Still, the agency's long-standing practice of taping over previous backups and pitifully small amounts of email storage doesn't exactly evoke confidence in the IRS's ability to maintain public records. That whatever effort was actually made to recover data from Lerner's crashed computer seems to have revolved around "personal" files makes this situation even worse. The IRS requires hard copy backups of any email that could conceivably be part of the "public record," but it appears that no one involved followed that rule. The rash of coincidental crashes only adds to the negative perception.

The IRS -- and the government -- demands so much from its citizens with pages and pages of federal regulations but it can't even be bothered to follow the few rules it sets for itself. Pathetic.

Filed Under: emails, hard drive, irs, lois lerner, public, records

Orders To Destroy Guardian Hard Drives Came Directly From PM David Cameron

from the and-now-the-nation-is-more-secure-than-ever! dept

More details continue to emerge on the UK government's two recent anti-journalist actions. The Guardian reports that the order to (pointlessly) smash up Guardian hardware came from the top.

A spokesman for Clegg made clear that Heywood was acting on the authority of both the prime minister and his deputy. The spokesman said: "We understand the concerns about recent events, particularly around issues of freedom of the press and civil liberties. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is already looking into the circumstances around the detention of David Miranda and we will wait to see his findings.

"On the specific issue of records held by the Guardian, the deputy prime minister thought it was reasonable for the cabinet secretary to request that the Guardian destroyed data that would represent a serious threat to national security if it was to fall into the wrong hands.

"The deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action. He was keen to protect the Guardian's freedom to publish, whilst taking the necessary steps to safeguard security.

"It was agreed to on the understanding that the purpose of the destruction of the material would not impinge on the Guardian's ability to publish articles about the issue, but would help as a precautionary measure to protect lives and security."

So, let's get this straight. The UK government "understands the concerns" about its recent actions, but apparently wouldn't change a thing if it had to do it all over again.

The usual justification presents itself repeatedly: security uber alles.

The government forced (statement says "request" but we know how these things work) the Guardian to destroy hard drives containing content that was "a serious threat to national security" but still existed elsewhere. The government knew this and still forced the issue and then has the temerity to claim the pointless show of force was about "safeguarding security."

Look at how many times that empty word shows up in this brief statement.

"...serious threat to national security…"

"...taking the necessary steps to safeguard security…"

"...a precautionary measure to protect lives and security…"

None of this was "necessary" or "precautionary." It did nothing. The data that might "threaten national security" is still out there. The government knows because its own defensive statement says the action "wouldn't impinge on the Guardian's ability to publish articles." It was pure muscle-flexing. This security-heavy statement pretty much says precisely that while expending many more words.

There's also this:

The deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action.

Awesome. The government would rather throw its weight around than pursue any sort of process that might have allowed the Guardian to dispute the order. How telling. How utterly and vilely telling. Of course the government felt this "approach" was "preferable." Screw the adversarial process. We've got the nation's "security" at stake. Everything else is secondary, including the public's outdated ideals about a free press and a government willing to respect the rights of its citizens.

Filed Under: david cameron, ed snowden, freedom of the press, glenn greenwald, hard drive, the guardian

Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?

from the court-may-think-so... dept

We've noted in the past how the courts have been stretching massively the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which was really designed to deal with unauthorized access to computers -- commonly referred to as malicious hacking. Yet, the courts have been interpreting it to cover all sorts of things that nobody would actually think of as hacking. In a recent case, for example, a guy who was a consultant at giant Deloitte & Touche, but then left to join a competitor, was sued by D&T because he destroyed the original hard drive in his work issued computer. When he quit, he returned the computer with a brand new hard drive. He had taken out the old hard drive and destroyed it because it had personal data on it (tax returns, account info and logins for personal things) that he didn't want to share with D&T.

It's difficult to see how this amounts to "hacking" or unauthorized access, and so the guy sought to have the case dismissed. Yet the court is allowing it to go forward, saying that the destruction of the hard drive was "without authorization" and thus the action fits under the CFAA. The problem here, as in other CFAA cases, is that it seems to interpret almost anything that doesn't have direct authorization as being "unauthorized access" and thus, the equivalent of fraud or hacking. But in this case, it seems pretty clear that the guy didn't do anything to harm the original company. He was just a little overzealous in trying to protect his personal info. Considering that his expertise as a consultant was in security and privacy... perhaps his actions aren't all that surprising, really. What really is questionable here is why D&T is suing in the first place. They got back the computer with a newer hard drive, so it's not like he returned a broken sytem to them.

Filed Under: cfaa, fraud, hacking, hard drive
Companies: deloitte & touche

Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display

from the can't-be-too-many-songs dept

TheNextWeb has an amusing story about a new art exhibit, called 5 Million Dollars, 1 Terabyte which is, of course, merely a hard drive with some unauthorized downloads on it. There's apparently a pdf file that lists out what's on the hard drive, but as with the author of the article, I was unable to get it to open. Of course, given how the industry seems to value "infringement" these days, I would imagine it doesn't need that many files to reach $5 million.

Filed Under: copyright, hard drive, modern art

Hard Drive For Border Crossings: Will Self-Destruct If Connected To An Unknown Host

from the well-there's-an-idea dept

We've discussed a few times how Homeland Security has aggressively (and successfully) claimed the right to search laptop harddrives at the border without probable cause (sometimes without any known cause). The response from some has been to now encrypt your drive, but it appears that technologists are trying to offer up a variety of other solutions. Dark Helmet points us to the news that Toshiba is now offering a hard drive that can delete itself if it's connected to an "unknown host." It can also take less extreme measures, including just ramping up the authentication needed. While being pitched as useful for governments, it seems like it can be useful to protect against governments as well.

Filed Under: hard drive, privacy, self destructing
Companies: toshiba

UK Advertising Board Says CD Jukebox With Hard Drive Can't Advertise That It Copies Music, Since That's Infringement

from the this-is-ridiculous dept

We've seen the entertainment industry flip out and kill innovative products like a DVD juke box that makes digital copies of your DVDs so that you can access and watch them more easily. Over in the UK, apparently they're also killing similar things for CDs. Derek Slater points us to the news that the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK has whacked the advertisements for the Brennan JB7 CD player, which is a CD player with a hard drive, because it advertises that it can copy your music... and that's illegal. Yes, even though it's for personal use. Over in the UK, you technically have no right to make personal copies of CDs, and since the advertisement doesn't make that clear, the ad is "inciting" infringement:

The ASA noted the product was a CD player as well as having a hard disk to store CDs and also record from vinyl and cassette. We also noted, however, it repeatedly made reference to the benefits of the product being able to copy music but did not make clear that it was illegal to do so without the permission of the copyright owner. We considered the overall impression of the ad was such that it encouraged consumers and businesses to copy CDs, vinyl and cassettes. In the absence of prominent explanation, we concluded that the ad misleadingly implied it was acceptable to copy CDs, vinyl and cassettes without the permission of the copyright owner. We also considered that the ad encouraged people to use the advertised product in this way and that, therefore, it incited consumers to break the law.

Filed Under: advertising, copies, hard drive, personal usage, uk