[drgoodword]

British government forces The Guardian newspaper to hand over Snowden documents and oversees the physical destruction of two Guardian computers. Unbelievable. The era of a (mostly) free press is rapidly coming to an end.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters

[Plantagenet]

The era of a (mostly) free press is rapidly coming to an end.

don't worry so. President Obama says NSA is actually open and transparent and in any case the secret FISA court is there to secretly protect our privacy, press freedom, etc

[ROCKMAN]

d - I also don't like much of the various govt responses to the Snowden incident. OTOH I don't think removing stolen govt documents from anyone's possession represents a loss of freedom for the press. We might not like what the govt is doing and perhaps we're better off with some of the revelations. But if someone steals anything belonging to you I suspect you would expect the authorities to recover and return it to you, wouldn't you? I doubt the law is much different in England than in the US: possessing a stolen item is illegal whether you stole it or not. Take a simple example: someone steals all your financial and medical records and gives them to the Guardian: wouldn't you expect the govt to force the Guardian to delete all the info from their files even if they weren't the ones who stole the data?

[sparky]

.Rockman , I appreciate your thinking ,
the issue is that "anti-terror "legislation is used to justifies pretty much anything
even clamping down on information better given to the citizens

there is a place for state secrets ,
preventing people to be informed on the scope and depth of government action is quite improper
If one doesn't know , how can one judge ?

As for a receding democracy ,
I believe that democracy is a function of the rate of increase of energy in a political system
it make people more valuable
when the energy consumption is stable , there is some status quo ,at whatever level that is
if energy decrease , people get cheaper , their concerns become more personal

[Keith_McClary]

Take a simple example: someone steals all your financial and medical records and gives them to the Guardian: wouldn't you expect the govt to force the Guardian to delete all the info from their files even if they weren't the ones who stole the data?

Someone accuses you of stealing some well logs, so gubmint agents come knocking on your door and smash your hard drives. Wouldn't you expect some due process?

[ROCKMAN]

Keith - No one accused the Guardian of having stolen files...they admitted it. That's due process, Isn't it? If I admit I have stolen logs wouldn't they authorities have the right to immediately take them from me? There is no supposition of innocence if you admit you're guilty, is there?

Again, very simple: someone admits they have your stolen property. No one denies it was stolen. In fact they go on TV and explain that they stole it and why they did it. Someone else publicizes they have your property. So at what point do the authorities need any more cause to recover your stolen items? It really doesn’t seem like a very complicated issue IMHO. We may not like some of what the govt has been doing and are glad it was exposed. But it doesn’t change the nature of the crime. Soon the govt will have all your medical and financial data. If someone steals it and gives it to the Guardian wouldn’t you want the authorities to remove it from their possession? Or is theft OK if it’s something you would like to see made public? I doubt you would take such a position.

I can understand why folks would be upset with the crap our govt and others are doing. But it doesn’t change the law. Edwards had his reasons for doing what he did. One can agree or disagree with those reasons. But he admits he committed a crime. A crime which he feels was justified but a crime no less. Thus he’s admitted his guilt. The Guardian admitted they were in possession of stolen material. They have their reasons for believing they should have made that info public. But they have admitted to having stolen property. Seems like due process has been followed just as you or I would expect it to be. Again simplistic: if I steal your X, admit I stole your X and tell the authorities where I have your X should I be allowed keep your X until I go to court and am officially convicted of stealing your X? Or would you want to authorities to immediately recover your X? Changes the tone of the discussion when you don’t specify what X is, doesn’t it?

[Timo]

In a digital universe, i highly doubt Greenwald kept ALL of the leaked documents on company servers. They're still out there, somewhere. The Russians seem to be playing it safe now, as they're going back to the neandrathal era of typewriters, whatever those are. Apparently, they're not connected to the intertubes.

[Keith_McClary]

Keith - No one accused the Guardian of having stolen files...they admitted it. That's due process, Isn't it? If I admit I have stolen logs wouldn't they authorities have the right to immediately take them from me? There is no supposition of innocence if you admit you're guilty, is there?

Again, very simple: someone admits they have your stolen property. No one denies it was stolen. In fact they go on TV and explain that they stole it and why they did it. Someone else publicizes they have your property. So at what point do the authorities need any more cause to recover your stolen items? It really doesn’t seem like a very complicated issue IMHO. We may not like some of what the govt has been doing and are glad it was exposed. But it doesn’t change the nature of the crime. Soon the govt will have all your medical and financial data. If someone steals it and gives it to the Guardian wouldn’t you want the authorities to remove it from their possession? Or is theft OK if it’s something you would like to see made public? I doubt you would take such a position.

I can understand why folks would be upset with the crap our govt and others are doing. But it doesn’t change the law. Edwards had his reasons for doing what he did. One can agree or disagree with those reasons. But he admits he committed a crime. A crime which he feels was justified but a crime no less. Thus he’s admitted his guilt. The Guardian admitted they were in possession of stolen material. They have their reasons for believing they should have made that info public. But they have admitted to having stolen property. Seems like due process has been followed just as you or I would expect it to be. Again simplistic: if I steal your X, admit I stole your X and tell the authorities where I have your X should I be allowed keep your X until I go to court and am officially convicted of stealing your X? Or would you want to authorities to immediately recover your X? Changes the tone of the discussion when you don’t specify what X is, doesn’t it?

"Due process" would be to get a warrant to seize the hard drives for evidence and then return them to you if they did not proceed with charges. There does not seem to be any "crime" or "stealing" involved, at least under UK law, otherwise they would have proceeded.(Ironically, much of this "stolen" information was itself "stolen" by "authorities".)

Now they are beginning to think about some sort of prosecution, not for "theft" but for "communicating information".

Guardian journalists could face criminal charges over Edward Snowden leaks

Cressida Dick, an assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard, confirmed for the first time that detectives were examining whether staff at the newspaper had committed an offence.
She also told MPs that her officers are looking at potential breaches of a specific anti-terrorism law which makes it unlawful to communicate information about British intelligence agents.

We should look at the content of the Snowden files – not the messenger

After grilling the Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, I am delighted the select committee I sit on will be summoning the security chiefs we really need to hear from.
When I think of terrorists, newspaper editors aren't the first people who spring to mind. Yet today the editor of the Guardian was hauled before the Commons home affairs select committee – of which I am a member – and accused of breaching terrorist law.

Frankly, any such allegation highlights how ludicrously broad these laws are.

Half hour radio interview this morning:
NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake

Thomas Drake, a computer software expert and former senior executive with the National Security Agency in the U.S., talks about the recent spate of whistleblowers, who have been shining a light in the dark corners of international cyber-spying. Mr. Drake was himself a whistle-blower; he was charged, but never convicted.

Before Edward Snowden, there was Thomas Drake.

Like the famed ... or some would say infamous ... former NSA contractor turned whistle-blower, Thomas Drake became increasingly concerned about the far-reaching surveillance system the U.S. government was building at the National Security Agency.
The high-ranking executive at the agency was concerned that the NSA was running rough-shod over protections enshrined in the U.S. constitution. He tried to raise his concerns internally, but no one seemed interested.

[Keith_McClary]

Why there won't be a third book in the Halting State trilogy
By Charlie Stross

I really wanted to make it a trilogy, you know? I mean, what could be cooler than a trilogy of near-future Scottish police procedurals about crimes that don't exist yet, written in multi-viewpoint second person? (Elizabeth Bear has a term for that kind of thing: she calls it "stunt writing".)

Unfortunately the NSA have done it again:

To the National Security Agency analyst writing a briefing to his superiors, the situation was clear: their current surveillance efforts were lacking something. The agency's impressive arsenal of cable taps and sophisticated hacking attacks was not enough. What it really needed was a horde of undercover Orcs.
Real-life agents have been deployed into virtual realms, from those Orc hordes in World of Warcraft to the human avatars of Second Life. There were attempts, too, to recruit potential informants from the games' tech-friendly users.

At this point, I'm clutching my head. "Halting State" wasn't intended to be predictive when I started writing it in 2006. Trouble is, about the only parts that haven't happened yet are Scottish Independence and the use of actual quantum computers for cracking public key encryption (and there's a big fat question mark over the latter—what else are the NSA up to?).
I'm throwing in the towel. I probably will write another near-future Scottish police procedural by and by, but it won't be a sequel to the first two except in the loosest sense. The science fictional universe of "Halting State" and "Rule 34" is teetering on the edge of turning into reality. Meanwhile, the financial crisis of 2007 forced me back to the drawing board for "Rule 34"; the Snowden revelations have systematically trashed all my ideas for the third book.
...
Sometimes I wish I'd stuck with the spaceships and bug-eyed monsters. Realism in fiction is over-rated.
...

[Graeme]

NSA mass phone surveillance programme 'unconstitutional'

A US judge has ruled the National Security Agency's mass collection of telephone data unconstitutional.

Federal District Judge Richard Leon said the electronic spy agency's practice was an "arbitrary invasion".

The agency's collection of "metadata" including telephone numbers and times and dates of calls was brought to light by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The White House dismissed the suggestion Mr Snowden receive amnesty if he stopped leaking documents.

In his ruling in a Washington DC federal court on Monday, Mr Leon called the NSA's surveillance programme "indiscriminate" and an "almost Orwellian technology that enables the government to store and analyze the phone metadata of every telephone user in the United States".



Earlier this month, Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian newspaper, which has published many of the Snowden documents, told UK MPs that only 1% of files leaked by Mr Snowden had been published by the newspaper.

The US has charged Mr Snowden with theft of government property, unauthorised communication of national defence information, and wilful communication of classified communications intelligence.

Each of the charges carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence.

At the weekend, the NSA allowed a CBS television crew into its headquarters for the first time, in an effort to be more open about what the agency does with the data it collects.

bbc

[dissident]

So perhaps the US government and assorted regime apologists can stop yapping that Snowden is not a whistleblower but some criminal.

[Keith_McClary]

Documents Reveal Top NSA Hacking Unit SPIEGEL

Spyware for mobile phones was even on offer in the 2008 version of the catalog. A Trojan for gaining total access to iPhones, which were still new at the time, was still in development, though its specifications are listed in the catalog.

'Implants' for Cisco, Juniper, Dell, Huawei and HP
...
The NSA has also targeted products made by well-known American manufacturers and found ways to break into professional-grade routers and hardware firewalls, such as those used by Internet and mobile phone operators. ANT offers malware and hardware for use on computers made by Cisco, Dell, Juniper, Hewlett-Packard and Chinese company Huawei.

They don't mention where they got the documents.

Funny, the article had this "targeted" ad, presumably based on the article content.

INFECTED.png

Also:
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-i ... hv77r.html

[Keith_McClary]

German Television Channel NDR does an exclusive interview with Edward Snowden. (ENGLISH) 30 min.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151

[Keith_McClary]

German Television Channel NDR does an exclusive interview with Edward Snowden. (ENGLISH) 30 min.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151

TRANSCRIPT

The contracting culture of the national security community in the United States is a complex topic. It’s driven by a number of interests between primarily limiting the number of direct government employees at the same time as keeping lobbying groups in Congress typically from very well funded businesses such as Booze Allen Hamilton. The problem there is you end up in a situation where government policies are being influenced by private corporations who have interests that are completely divorced from the public good in mind. The result of that is what we saw at Booze Allen Hamilton where you have private individuals who have access to what the government alleges were millions and millions of records that they could walk out the door with at any time with no accountability, no oversight, no auditing, the government didn’t even know they were gone.

[Plantagenet]

Chancelor Merkel of Germany just spoke out again about NSA spying. She clearly doesn't believe O's claims that he is no longer listening in to her private cell phone conversations with her husband.

[Sixstrings]

The contracting culture of the national security community in the United States is a complex topic. It’s driven by a number of interests between primarily limiting the number of direct government employees at the same time as keeping lobbying groups in Congress typically from very well funded businesses such as Booze Allen Hamilton. The problem there is you end up in a situation where government policies are being influenced by private corporations who have interests that are completely divorced from the public good in mind. The result of that is what we saw at Booze Allen Hamilton where you have private individuals who have access to what the government alleges were millions and millions of records that they could walk out the door with at any time with no accountability, no oversight, no auditing, the government didn’t even know they were gone.

Hm, well I just learned something new.

Snowden keeps having more and more to say. Useful insights for the public to know what's going on. Smart guy -- and he gets put down for being "a high school dropout."

He should write a book.

[Sixstrings]

that's really funny

The administration says that everyone spies on everyone. The president has said all the rules they have about blackberries and such are in place because they know our allies -- like Germany and all the others -- are spying on them, right in the white house. That Germany would just as soon eavesdrop on him (paraphrasing, that's what he implied).

You think that's true, Plant? Or is the government sidestepping the scale of the NSA program?

Obama also says that in private, these leaders tell him they recognize the US has a "special responsibility" in the world, and that they want the intel from us if we find out about terrorism etc.

Americans should be more upset than what they are. This whole topic is so Big Brother disconcerting, I really don't even want to talk about it. Tracking everyone's phone calls, phone trees and degrees of separation, Jesus.

Assuming it is JUST for terrorism, assuming innocent Americans don't get harassed -- like some business owner like a mechanic or something, who talked to a customer on the phone who talked to someone else -- and assuming it's not expanded one day to listening in on calls and reporting tax cheating and whatnot, then ok.

The problem is the slippery slope.

And that these are warrantless, without probable cause other than someone talked to someone who talked to someone. People are okay with that if it's for fighting terrorism but what if it gets expanded, in the future? Just no more warrants?

[Newfie]

We are well down that slope.

http://votesmart.org/bill/1537/4553/eco ... vF2bX-9KSM

Vote to pass a bill that adds ecoterrorism to the state’s criminal code. The bill defines ecoterrorism as the intention to intimidate, coerce, prevent or obstruct “an individual lawfully participating in an activity involving animals, plants or an activity involving a natural resource facility.” The bill sets a penalty of no more than 40 years in prison and up to a $100,000 fine for a first-degree felony. The bill also requires the convicted individual to pay the property owner restitution of up to three times the amount of damage caused. The bill also makes intentional agricultural crop destruction a felony in the second degree.

http://www.popularresistance.org/fracki ... errorists/

James Powers, Pennsylvania Homeland Security Director contracted with an anti-terrorism contractor, Institute of Terrorism Research and Response (ITRR), to spy on gas drilling opponents. ITRR intercepted communications and tracked group members and their affiliations.

This is a valid story.

[Sixstrings]

James Powers, Pennsylvania Homeland Security Director contracted with an anti-terrorism contractor, Institute of Terrorism Research and Response (ITRR), to spy on gas drilling opponents. ITRR intercepted communications and tracked group members and their affiliations.

This is a valid story.

That doesn't surprise me. Law enforcement does infiltrate various groups, and they set up stings etc.

If one is going to eco-activist meetings or something, or if one is a muslim going to a community center or whatnot, or if one is going off to NRA conventions or Tea Party meetings or Libertarians or something like Occupy, anything that's out of the mainstream -- you need to be aware of this.

Nobody on this forum is crazy or violent, but you need to be cautious of who you associate with.

And with phone trees and degrees of separation, you must also be aware of who the people you talk to are talking to, and who they are talking to.

What if that's ever extended to the internet? A forum like this, we have no idea who anyone is and who they talk to and the 3rd degree of separation out from there. You can connect any two people in the whole world with 7 degrees of separation.

To be fair and not too paranoid, this already goes on with general law enforcement and if you're an innocent person not doing anything and just talked to someone who talked to someone then you're okay. The difference is it used to be more case by case and require a warrant and wasn't wholesale phone trees in a supercomputer.

And, the biggest concern is the slippery slope -- let's say you're a mechanic and you just talked to a customer on the phone and that customer talked to someone else they shouldn't have and it gets looked into, then the government overhears on your calls that you cheated on your taxes and if they then go after you for that then that is what a Stazi police state is.

(I know this post sounds utterly paranoid, but this is my understanding of how it works, if I'm misunderstanding things then someone tell me. Right in this CBS 60 minutes video they say they tell the FBI "that number is talking to somebody who is very bad you ought to go look at it." Well what if it's a business owner dealing with a customer? He's going to have his calls listened to? Does a judge at any point sit down and look for probable cause on that hypothetical mechanic, other than the phone tree?

Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaobOF1arF0

Maybe it's ok if they stick to the rules Obama just made, but this slippery slope is really bad.)

[KaiserJeep]

"Everybody spies on Everybody" unfortunately has a ring of truth to it. Here in Silicon Valley my employer forbids Bluetooth phones and mobile devices which do not support encryption from connecting to our business network. Our employer-supplied laptop computers have encryption installed for both hard drive contents and network transactions to/from our servers. Not to mention, they are managing the software content so tightly that you cannot install a single unapproved program.

All this is to protect our information from competitors and the press. In Silicon Valley, there are thousands of Blogs online, and chances are good that your employer is reading yours - and your pages on the social networks. If you don't like it, you are welcome to seek employment elsewhere.