Uncategorized

New Massive Surveillance Program Revealed Of Emails, Photos, and Other Communications Of U.S. Citizens

President_Barack_ObamaIn the wake of the disclosure of a massive surveillance program ordered by the Obama Administration of all calls by all citizens using Verizon, there is a new disclosure of an equally large data-mining operation where the government has seized e-mail, photos and other private communications from some of the biggest Internet companies.  Even in the wake of the attack on the free press and the surveillance of all citizens in the Verizon scandal, Democratic leaders are rallying around Obama in the rejection of the least remnants of principle in the party.  We are now at the tipping point for a free nation as President Obama and leaders like Dianne Feinstein assure citizens that there is nothing to fear in our new fishbowl society.


According to the media reports, the government demanded and received access to nine major firms, including Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and Facebook under the program called PRISM. The article states that the program has been running since 2007 and has undergone “exponential growth.”

When confronted over the massive government surveillance, Feinstein was dismissive and said “It’s called protecting America”. Others would call it the harbinger to an authoritarian state but Feinstein has long been criticized for her presumed knowledge of the torture program and other abuses of civil liberties.

These programs reveal the creation of huge databanks that can be used to make the movements and associations transparent to the government. After years of apathy and blind loyalty to Obama, these scandals will test whether Americans have any remaining commitment to privacy and civil liberties in the face of the mantra (repeated today by the Administration) that these programs make them safer.

As in the past, Congress has proven a willing participant in the erosion of civil liberties. It will be up to citizens whether we go quietly into this night. As I previously wrote, it is becoming increasingly difficult to call this the “land of the free” as we allow the rise of security state in this country.

By the way, you may remember Obama running for president the first time in the aftermath of reports of the NSA mining Internet communications. He promised voters: “For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and “wiretaps without warrants.” He would now make Richard Nixon blush.

Source: CNN

125 thoughts on “New Massive Surveillance Program Revealed Of Emails, Photos, and Other Communications Of U.S. Citizens”

  3. Darren Smith warns us, “And yes, the President is a traitor to the constitution and everyone in congress is an enabler.”

    Regrettably true. Seat grand juries. It’s the only way now.

    A U.S. Attorney needs to wake up and realize the purpose of their otherwise pitiful existence. I do not care who it is.

  5. ” I will leave this office at some point. And after that i will be a private citizen. And I would expect that on the list of people who might be targeted so that somebody could read their emails – I’d probably be pretty high on that list. But I know that the people who are involved in these programs… They’re professionals. -Barack Obama

    Q&A:

    “Obama: ‘Nobody is listening to your telephone calls’ – live updates”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-administration-nsa-prism-revelations-live

    Obama: ‘In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother’

    The president concludes with an eyebrow-raising argument for why he can be trusted to ensure there are appropriate safeguards limiting government surveillance programs.

    The two-term president asserts that once he leaves office, he may be particularly targeted by America’s rogue spymasters, if they were allowed to exist:

    ” I will leave this office at some point. And after that i will be a private citizen. And I would expect that on the list of people who might be targeted so that somebody could read their emails – I’d probably be pretty high on that list. But I know that the people who are involved in these programs… They’re professionals.

    In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we’ve struck the right balance.”

    =====

    Bullsh*t. There is nothing the least bit “abstract” about this for some of us.

    Obama… selling the public a bill of goods…

    We’ve “struck the right balance”? My a$$.

  6. So is there anyone that matters left that hasn’t figured out our “We the People” gov’t has been taken over by a corrupt band of tyrannt aholes?

    This is what it looks like when confedence in our leadership falls off a cliff.

    http://www.infowars.com/listen

  7. “A Massive Surveillance State”: Glenn Greenwald Exposes Covert NSA Program Collecting Calls, Emails

    http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/7/a_massive_surveillance_state_glenn_greenwald

    Part of the interview:

    GLENN GREENWALD: Right. Well, first of all, after our story was published, and The Washington Post published more or less simultaneously a similar story, several news outlets, including NBC News, confirmed with government officials that they in fact have exactly the access to the data that we describe. The director of national intelligence confirmed to The New York Times, by name, that the program we identify and the capabilities that we described actually exist. So, you have a situation where somebody seems to be lying. The NSA claims that these companies voluntarily allow them the access; the companies say that they never did.

    This is exactly the kind of debate that we ought to have out in the open. What exactly is the government doing in how it spies on us and how it reads our emails and how it intercepts our chats? Let’s have that discussion out in the open. To the extent that these companies and the NSA have a conflict and can’t get their story straight, let them have that conflict resolved in front of us. And then we, as citizens, instead of having this massive surveillance apparatus built completely secretly and in the dark without us knowing anything that’s going on, we can then be informed about what kinds of surveillance the government is engaged in and have a reasoned debate about whether that’s the kind of world in which we want to live.

    AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, on Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein told reporters in the Senate gallery that the government’s top-secret court order to obtain phone records on millions of Americans is, quote, “lawful.”

    SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the FISA court under the business records section of the PATRIOT Act, therefore it is lawful.

    AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator Dianne Feinstein. Glenn Greenwald?

    GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, the fact that something is lawful doesn’t mean that it isn’t dangerous or tyrannical or wrong. You can enact laws that endorse tyrannical behavior. And there’s no question, if you look at what the government has done, from the PATRIOT Act, the Protect America Act, the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act, that’s exactly what the war on terror has been about.

    But I would just defer to two senators who are her colleagues, who are named Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. They have—are good Democrats. They have spent two years now running around trying to get people to listen to them as they’ve been saying, “Look, what the Obama administration is doing in interpreting the PATRIOT Act is so radical and so distorted and warped that Americans will be stunned to learn” — that’s their words — “what is being done in the name of these legal theories, these secret legal theories, in terms of the powers the Obama administration has claimed for itself in how it can spy on Americans.”

    When the PATRIOT Act was enacted—and you can go back and look at the debates, as I’ve done this week—nobody thought, even opponents of the PATRIOT Act, that it would ever be used to enable the government to gather up everybody’s telephone records and communication records without regard to whether they’ve done anything wrong. The idea of the PATRIOT Act was that when the government suspects somebody of being involved in terrorism or serious crimes, the standard of proof is lowered for them to be able to get these documents. But the idea that the PATRIOT Act enables bulk collection, mass collection of the records of hundreds of millions of Americans, so that the government can store that and know what it is that we’re doing at all times, even when there’s no reason to believe that we’ve done anything wrong, that is ludicrous, and Democratic senators are the ones saying that it has nothing to do with that law.

    AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday, Glenn, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he stood by what he told Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in March, when he said that the National Security Agency does “not wittingly” collect data on millions of Americans. Let’s go to that exchange.

    SEN. RON WYDEN: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

    JAMES CLAPPER: No, sir.

    SEN. RON WYDEN: It does not?

    JAMES CLAPPER: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.

    AMY GOODMAN: That’s the questioning of the head of the national intelligence, James Clapper, by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. Glenn Greenwald?

    GLENN GREENWALD: OK. So, we know that to be a lie, not a misleading statement, not something that was sort of parsed in a way that really was a little bit deceitful, but an outright lie. They collect—they collect data and records about the communications activities and other behavioral activities of millions of Americans all the time. That’s what that program is that we exposed on Wednesday. They go to the FISA court every three months, and they get an order compelling telephone companies to turn over the records, that he just denied they collect, with regard to the conversations of every single American who uses these companies to communicate with one another. The same is true for what they’re doing on the Internet with the PRISM program. The same is true for what the NSA does in all sorts of ways.

    We are going to do a story, coming up very shortly, about the scope of the NSA’s spying activities domestically, and I think it’s going to shock a lot of people, because the NSA likes to portray itself as interested only in foreign intelligence gathering and only in targeting people who they believe are guilty of terrorism, and yet the opposite is true. It is a massive surveillance state of exactly the kind that the Church Committee warned was being constructed 35 years ago. And we intend to make all those facts available so people can see just how vast it is and how false those kind of statements are.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go back to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein. Speaking on MSNBC, she said the leak should be investigated and that the U.S. has a, quote, “culture of leaks.”

    SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: There is nothing new in this program. The fact of the matter is that this was a routine three-month approval, under seal, that was leaked.

    ANDREA MITCHELL: Should it be—should the leak be investigated?

    SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I think so. I mean, I think we have become a culture of leaks now.

    AMY GOODMAN: That was the Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Dianne Feinstein, being questioned by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Glenn Greenwald, your final response to this? And sum up your findings. They’re talking about you, Glenn.

    GLENN GREENWALD: I think Dianne Feinstein may be the most Orwellian political official in Washington. It is hard to imagine having a government more secretive than the United States. Virtually everything that government does, of any significance, is conducted behind an extreme wall of secrecy. The very few leaks that we’ve had over the last decade are basically the only ways that we’ve had to learn what our government is doing.

    But look, what she’s doing is simply channeling the way that Washington likes to threaten the people over whom they exercise power, which is, if you expose what it is that we’re doing, if you inform your fellow citizens about all the things that we’re doing in the dark, we will destroy you. This is what their spate of prosecutions of whistleblowers have been about. It’s what trying to threaten journalists, to criminalize what they do, is about. It’s to create a climate of fear so that nobody will bring accountability to them.

    It’s not going to work. I think it’s starting to backfire, because it shows their true character and exactly why they can’t be trusted to operate with power in secret. And we’re certainly not going to be deterred by it in any way. The people who are going to be investigated are not the people reporting on this, but are people like Dianne Feinstein and her friends in the National Security Agency, who need investigation and transparency for all the things that they’ve been doing.

    AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, we want to thank you for being with us. Is this threat of you being investigated going to deter you in any way, as you continue to do these exclusives, these exposés?

    GLENN GREENWALD: No, it’s actually going to embolden me to pursue these stories even more aggressively.

  8. Mike Appleton 1, June 7, 2013 at 10:27 am

    Well, this certainly explains the administration’s paranoia over leaks.

    ======

    There’s much more to come. And it’s worse.

  9. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I find it odd, particularly for someone of Turley’s caliber, that no mention is made of Glen Greenwald in this post. Greenwald was the one who first broke the story. There is little doubt this will come at great cost to himself. So it is sad that Mr. Turley feels it unnecessary to mention his sacrifice nor the demeaning – damning with feint praise – articles written about him in the NYT and Washington Post.

  11. JT:

    Sometimes my faith in you is refreshed every now and then!

    What caught my eye: “We are now at the tipping point for a free nation as President Obama and leaders like Dianne Feinstein assure citizens that there is nothing to fear in our new fishbowl society.”

    Jeesh, thems dare are fightin’ words :-))

    You are one of my idols, you do not hold back in your passion against liberty, no matter which party is stupping us.

    I appreciate your stance against the establishment, when the establishment is doing us wrong.

  12. Charles P. Pierce:

    AND OF COURSE, IT GETS WORSE

    Well, it turns out your data has been being mined like you’re a patch of fresh forest up in northern Wisconsin.
    …
    The companies are so deep in weasel-speak on this one that they never may find their way out. At this point, after over a decade of this, “in accordance to the law” could mean almost anything, and probably does.
    …
    The government is pushing back, as is expected. There’s the “It’s not what you think it is” defense, and there’s the “It’s for your own good” defense, too. (Read all the way through to see Huckleberry Graham wave the Fourth and Fifth Amendments away with his magic wand.) The problem, again, is not what’s illegal, it’s what’s been made legal. Or quasi-legal. Or something.

  13. I’m afraid this is only the beginning and the tip of the iceberg at the metaphorical same time.

    The president needs to be impeached AND convicted. But, that isn’t going to happen I am afraid because too many politicians will support each other and the worship of President Obama is to dear.

    And yes, the President is a traitor to the constitution and everyone in congress is an enabler.

  14. One point I have not yet heard, is this data collection only individuals or is it commercial, financial, data as well? What will the mega-conglomerates and multi-national businesses think about the U.S. gathering all that interconnected traffic/data?

  15. Yup. So nice that they’re keeping us safe and shredding the Constitution and civil liberties at the same time. Franklin was correct when he stated: “Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.” When the books are written, let’s hope that history is none to kind to them. What a treasonous bunch.

  17. You people are a little clueless, I wish it were funny this late in the game.

    Bron says he knew a democrat would abuse this power — that though party affiliation were relevant here.

    Nick says lay off the guy — as though Obama were anything other than Bush III.

    Here are the issues at play:

    Since the CALEA compliance mandated under Clinton, online service providers profit from spying on you. They’re also immunized against prosecution by a FISA amendment.

    So, Yahoo’s fee schedule looks like this:

    http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf

    e.g.,

    • Basic subscriber records: approx. $20 for the first ID, $10 per ID thereafter

    • Basic Group Information (including information about moderators): approx. $20 for a group with a single moderator

    • Contents of subscriber accounts, including email: approx. $30-$40 per user

    • Contents of Groups: approx. $40 – $80 per group

    Whereas Sprint makes more aggressive sales pitches:

    http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/sprint-spy2.pdf

    Sprint delivers the highest levels of security experience and management services.

    Sprint’s Managed IP VPN solution is designed to meet the needs of any law enforcement agency, whether or not they have any existing network infrastructure or expertise. Sprint will provide, configure, and manage a complete solution.

    24×365 Contivity device monitoring and management

    Sprint can also provide dedicated internet access.

    Requirements

    Internet access must be dedicated. No dial-up access allowed. The Contivity 600 must have 2 public routable IP addresses. The Collection Device must have a public routable IP address.

    PROS:

    Fully managed by Sprint on a proactive basis. A single point of contact for all troubleshooting issues. Immediate response and customer support. Available security expertise. Top grade connection reliability. Sprint can also manage any other tunnels on that Contivity device if desired. Fully secure connection. Undetectable from any outside snooping. CONS:

    More expensive than the Customer Managed IP VPN Service.

    The other thing to keep in mind is the scale of the issue:

    “Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with customer location data more than 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009, according to a company manager who disclosed the statistic at a non-public interception and wiretapping conference in October.”

    ***

    Now, the notion that “meta data” is less sensitive than call content (ala Sen. Feinstein) is a bit of a smoke screen.

    When thinking about these things, it is important to start with the premise that whatever data the NSA is collecting has value and is interesting, since, after all, they are collecting it. You may think, “what I do online is so boring nobody is interested in it,” you are avoiding the important fact that the NSA is collecting your data now because it is interesting to them. If a Senator says, “Oh, it’s just metadata, it’s not really interesting,” that’s a lie.

    From an operational perspective: if you intercept and listen to a phone call, the people on the line may talk in slang, they may talk casually to eachother about past interactions off the phone, they may speak unintelligibly but understand eachother through context, etc.

    Bottom line is this: if you are the NSA and you query Verizon about a call, you may or may not get anything useful form that call itself; but if you’re building a database of metadata, you’ll always get something useful there.

    Put slightly differently: the content of the call may be highly equivocal, but the metadata is always unequivocal.

    Also, if your transactional “meta” data (like the buttons you press on the keypad of your phone) are fair game, then don’t do any banking over the phone, or enter any pin numbers into the phone (for example, to check your voicemail) because that can be vacuumed up too.

    And, lastly, if you ever choose to run for office, with a click of a button, your political opponent in government can compile a detailed accounting of ALL your past activities, including where you’ve been (cell tower metadata) and what your persistent social network looks like (people are promiscuous on FaceBook, but only tend to call their actual friends).

    ***

    Lastly, consider that these data mining technologies are not all that useful for catching terrorists. The government says that these systems have caught terrorists, but we don’t know if some other less invasive system would have done the same.

    The following argument is taken from computer scientist Phil Agre, and, while the argument was originally fashioned for face recognition technology, the stated goals of this dragnet surveillance (presumably meant for pattern-matching algorithms) I think involves similar odds:

    “Face recognition is nearly useless for the application that has been most widely discussed since the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington: identifying terrorists in a crowd. As Bruce Schneier points out, the reasons why are statistical. Let us assume, with extreme generosity, that a face recognition system is 99.99 percent accurate. In other words, if a high-quality photograph of your face is not in the “terrorist watch list” database, then it is 99.99 percent likely that the software will not produce a match when it scans your face in real life. Then let us say that one airline passenger in ten million has their face in the database. Now, 99.99 percent probably sounds good. It means one failure in 10,000. In scanning ten million passengers, however, one failure in 10,000 means 1000 failures — and only one correct match of a real terrorist. In other words, 999 matches out of 1000 will be false, and each of those false matches will cost time and effort that could have been spent protecting security in other ways. Perhaps one would argue that 1000 false alarms are worth the benefits of one hijacking prevented. Once the initial shock of the recent attacks wears off, however, the enormous percentage of false matches will condition security workers to assume that all positive matches are mistaken. The great cost of implementing and maintaining the face recognition systems will have gone to waste. The fact is, spotting terrorists in a crowd is a needle-in-a-haystack problem, and automatic face recognition is not a needle-in-a-haystack-quality technology. Hijackings can be prevented in many ways, and resources should be invested in the measures that are likely to work.”

  19. http://www.theroot.com/views/obama-black-leaders-its-complicated?wpisrc=root_lightbox

    The president was feeling liberated and free to express himself a little more now. About a month after the election, the Obamas hosted a small party for close friends and a few people from the administration and the campaign. The president was standing in a small group and said he was the only president since Roosevelt to have won twice with more than 51 percent of the vote. It was true that Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all had three-way races that kept them under 51 percent.

    Eisenhower was, in fact, the last such president, but that was more than a half-century ago, so the boast was still impressive enough. One of his African-American friends, switching to street vernacular, said, “Well, I guess that makes it perfectly clear: Youse a bad motherf–ker.”

    “That’s my point,” the president replied, without missing a beat.

  20. He tots just change his name to George W. Obama and get it over with…..

    Man o man… He makes Stalin proud doesn’t he… Proletariats of the time are a changing….

Comments are closed.