ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Jul 22 15 10:53 PM
Feds can read every email you opened last year without a warrant
Lawmakers want the FBI and NSA -- and other federal agencies -- to get a warrant first. It's no longer a surprise that the government is reading your emails. What you might not know is that it can readily read most of your email without a warrant. Any email or social networking message you've opened that's more than six months old can also be accessed by every law enforcement official in government -- without needing to get a warrant. That's because a key provision in a law almost three decades' old allows this kind of access with a mere subpoena, which doesn't require a judge. That includes every email or message you opened last year, and earlier. (Anything under that six-month period still requires a warrant, however.) It's therefore no surprise that in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, hundreds of lawmakers are calling for change. But there's a problem. The committee that would get the bill, dubbed the Email Privacy Act, to the House floor for a vote hasn't yet picked it up. The warrantless email search reform bill was originally introduced in 2013, but stalled in a bureaucratic session despite passing the various congressional committees. The proposed law aims to fix the outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which is still in effect despite falling behind the curve of the digital age, and has the support from privacy groups and major technology companies alike. Its popularity has rocketed. The House version of the bill, introduced by Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS, 3rd), has more than 280 co-sponsors, more than half the entire House of Representatives. That includes big names like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY, 4th), whose election was won on supporting privacy matters. It also includes Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI, 5th), who was a key figure in bringing the Freedom Act to a final vote.
Lawmakers want the FBI and NSA -- and other federal agencies -- to get a warrant first.
It's no longer a surprise that the government is reading your emails. What you might not know is that it can readily read most of your email without a warrant.
Any email or social networking message you've opened that's more than six months old can also be accessed by every law enforcement official in government -- without needing to get a warrant. That's because a key provision in a law almost three decades' old allows this kind of access with a mere subpoena, which doesn't require a judge.
That includes every email or message you opened last year, and earlier. (Anything under that six-month period still requires a warrant, however.)
It's therefore no surprise that in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, hundreds of lawmakers are calling for change. But there's a problem. The committee that would get the bill, dubbed the Email Privacy Act, to the House floor for a vote hasn't yet picked it up.
The warrantless email search reform bill was originally introduced in 2013, but stalled in a bureaucratic session despite passing the various congressional committees. The proposed law aims to fix the outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which is still in effect despite falling behind the curve of the digital age, and has the support from privacy groups and major technology companies alike.
Its popularity has rocketed. The House version of the bill, introduced by Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS, 3rd), has more than 280 co-sponsors, more than half the entire House of Representatives. That includes big names like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY, 4th), whose election was won on supporting privacy matters. It also includes Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI, 5th), who was a key figure in bringing the Freedom Act to a final vote.
Read more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/every-email-you-opened-last-year-can-be-read-by-the-fbi-without-a-warrant/
ARLINGTON, Va. — This is not your typical summer sleepaway camp. Bonfires and archery? Try Insecure Direct Object References and A1-Injections. The dozen or so teenagers staring at computers in a Marymount University classroom here on a recent day were learning — thanks to a new National Security Agency cybersecurity program that reaches down into the ranks of American high school and middle school students — the entry-level art of cracking encrypted passwords. “We basically tried a dictionary attack,” Ben Winiger, 16, of Johnson City, Tenn., said as he typed a new command into John The Ripper, a software tool that helps test and break passwords. “Now we’re trying a brute-force attack.” Others in the room stumbled through the exercise more slowly, getting help from faculty instructors who had prepped them with a lecture on the ethics of hacking. In other words, they were effectively told, do not try this at home. “Now, I don’t want anybody getting in trouble now that you know how to use this puppy,” Darrell Andrews, one of the camp’s instructors, warned loudly. “Right? Right?” he added with emphasis.
ARLINGTON, Va. — This is not your typical summer sleepaway camp.
Bonfires and archery? Try Insecure Direct Object References and A1-Injections.
The dozen or so teenagers staring at computers in a Marymount University classroom here on a recent day were learning — thanks to a new National Security Agency cybersecurity program that reaches down into the ranks of American high school and middle school students — the entry-level art of cracking encrypted passwords.
“We basically tried a dictionary attack,” Ben Winiger, 16, of Johnson City, Tenn., said as he typed a new command into John The Ripper, a software tool that helps test and break passwords. “Now we’re trying a brute-force attack.”
Others in the room stumbled through the exercise more slowly, getting help from faculty instructors who had prepped them with a lecture on the ethics of hacking. In other words, they were effectively told, do not try this at home.
“Now, I don’t want anybody getting in trouble now that you know how to use this puppy,” Darrell Andrews, one of the camp’s instructors, warned loudly. “Right? Right?” he added with emphasis.
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/us/nsa-summer-camp-hacking-cyber-defense.html?_r=4
Somewhere in the thousands of towering apartment blocks that ring the Russian capital, whistle-blower Edward Snowden remains in hiding two years after outraging U.S. intelligence agencies with revelations of their snooping into the private communications of millions of ordinary citizens. Snowden's release of classified files he took from his National Security Agency contractor's job blew the lid off programs long said to be aimed at catching terrorists and keeping Americans safe. The leaks triggered a global debate on government trampling of personal liberties and led to last month's congressional action to end the mass collection of telephone records, the first major restrictions on spy agency powers in decades.
Somewhere in the thousands of towering apartment blocks that ring the Russian capital, whistle-blower Edward Snowden remains in hiding two years after outraging U.S. intelligence agencies with revelations of their snooping into the private communications of millions of ordinary citizens.
Snowden's release of classified files he took from his National Security Agency contractor's job blew the lid off programs long said to be aimed at catching terrorists and keeping Americans safe. The leaks triggered a global debate on government trampling of personal liberties and led to last month's congressional action to end the mass collection of telephone records, the first major restrictions on spy agency powers in decades.
Read more @ http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-snowden-future-20150722-story.html#page=1
Instead of governments being for the people they are against the people…. I see a "them and us" attitude and it shouldn't be that way.... Governments were created to be the servants of the people…..
The U.S. should publicly hang leaker Edward Snowden if and when he falls into the government’s hands, according to the former top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “We need to hang him on the courthouse square as soon was we get our hands on him,” retired Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — who served as vice chairman of the powerful intelligence panel before stepping down from Congress last year — said during an appearance at the University of Georgia this month.
The U.S. should publicly hang leaker Edward Snowden if and when he falls into the government’s hands, according to the former top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“We need to hang him on the courthouse square as soon was we get our hands on him,” retired Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — who served as vice chairman of the powerful intelligence panel before stepping down from Congress last year — said during an appearance at the University of Georgia this month.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/248490-ex-top-spy-committee-senator-publicly-hang-snowden
Whistleblower addresses Prague meeting of 'net engineers NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has urged the world's leading group of internet engineers to design a future 'net that puts the user in the center, and so protects people's privacy. Speaking via webcast to a meeting in Prague of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the former spy talked about a range of possible changes to the basic engineering of the global communications network that would make it harder for governments to carry out mass surveillance. The session was not recorded, but a number of attendees live-tweeted the confab. It was not an official IETF session, but one organized by attendees at the Prague event and using the IETF's facilities. It followed a screening of the film Citizenfour, which documents the story of Snowden leaking NSA files to journalists while in a hotel room in Hong Kong. "Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked, rhetorically. The answer was users, not government and not business. But, he said, the current internet protocols were leaking too much data about users. "We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way," he argued, highlighting how the widespread use of credit cards online was connecting identity to online activity. "If it's creating more metadata, this is in general a bad thing." Instead, protocols should "follow users' intent." He argued that DNS queries should be encrypted – as well as actual content – so that encryption, rather than surveillance, was the norm. "People are being killed based on metadata," he noted. Spud gun Snowden appeared to have a good understanding of how the internet's protocols work, and pointed to a new protocol called SPUD that combines transport protocols to reduce the number of "middleboxes" that data needs to travel through when users interact online. Snowden noted that the network path was the best place for spies to get access to information and that each middlebox provided another potential point of attack, but also warned that SPUD could make the core UDP internet protocol "a new channel for leaking metadata about users' intents."
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has urged the world's leading group of internet engineers to design a future 'net that puts the user in the center, and so protects people's privacy.
Speaking via webcast to a meeting in Prague of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the former spy talked about a range of possible changes to the basic engineering of the global communications network that would make it harder for governments to carry out mass surveillance.
The session was not recorded, but a number of attendees live-tweeted the confab. It was not an official IETF session, but one organized by attendees at the Prague event and using the IETF's facilities. It followed a screening of the film Citizenfour, which documents the story of Snowden leaking NSA files to journalists while in a hotel room in Hong Kong.
"Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked, rhetorically. The answer was users, not government and not business.
But, he said, the current internet protocols were leaking too much data about users. "We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way," he argued, highlighting how the widespread use of credit cards online was connecting identity to online activity.
"If it's creating more metadata, this is in general a bad thing." Instead, protocols should "follow users' intent." He argued that DNS queries should be encrypted – as well as actual content – so that encryption, rather than surveillance, was the norm. "People are being killed based on metadata," he noted.
Snowden appeared to have a good understanding of how the internet's protocols work, and pointed to a new protocol called SPUD that combines transport protocols to reduce the number of "middleboxes" that data needs to travel through when users interact online.
Snowden noted that the network path was the best place for spies to get access to information and that each middlebox provided another potential point of attack, but also warned that SPUD could make the core UDP internet protocol "a new channel for leaking metadata about users' intents."
Read more @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/20/edward_snowden_to_the_ietf_please_design_an_internet_for_the_user_not_the_spy/
"Everybody should be safe all the time, else we let others choose who will be safe or not," American whistleblower Edward Snowden tells a meeting of independent internet engineers in Prague. Nadia Prupis reports (via Common Dreams). THE INTERNET is not for businesses, governments, or spies — it's for users and it's up to the independent web engineers to keep it safe for them. That was the most recent message from National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who surprised a meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in Prague, Czech Republic on Monday with a webcast Q&A. "Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked of the roughly 170 engineers in the audience, referring to users. He added that current safety protocols on the web make too much private user data available to the NSA and other intelligence agencies and businesses. Snowden continued: "We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way." The IETF is one of the primary bodies creating voluntary standards of use, design and management of the internet, and Monday's meeting gave Snowden a welcome platform to promote a freer and safer web. A frank live chat with Snowden...something that can happen just at an @ietf meeting! Internet democracy on stage. pic.twitter.com/nbAqP6nmRi — Simon Pietro Romano (@spromano) July 19, 2015 As the Register UK reports, IETF members '... have a strong independent streak, and many are still embarrassed by the fact that the NSA managed to crack a number of key internet protocols developed by the IETF and even subvert some of its working groups in their bid to develop new standards that would give the spooks easy access.' Snowden's 2013 revelations that the NSA was collecting bulk telephone and internet metadata prompted an ongoing global debate over the role of government surveillance and the nature of individual privacy — a phenomenon termed by media critic Professor Jay Rosen as "the Snowden Effect". For its part, the IETF responded to the leaks by developing a memorandum, known as a "Request for Comment" (RFC), entitled 'Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack'. In his Q&A with the engineers on Monday, Snowden reiterated the dangers of invasive collection of information. "People are being killed based on metadata, this is real," he said.
"Everybody should be safe all the time, else we let others choose who will be safe or not," American whistleblower Edward Snowden tells a meeting of independent internet engineers in Prague. Nadia Prupis reports (via Common Dreams).
THE INTERNET is not for businesses, governments, or spies — it's for users and it's up to the independent web engineers to keep it safe for them.
That was the most recent message from National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who surprised a meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in Prague, Czech Republic on Monday with a webcast Q&A.
"Who is the Internet for, who does it serve, who is the IETF's ultimate customer?" Snowden asked of the roughly 170 engineers in the audience, referring to users.
He added that current safety protocols on the web make too much private user data available to the NSA and other intelligence agencies and businesses.
Snowden continued:
"We need to divorce identity from persona in a lasting way."
The IETF is one of the primary bodies creating voluntary standards of use, design and management of the internet, and Monday's meeting gave Snowden a welcome platform to promote a freer and safer web.
A frank live chat with Snowden...something that can happen just at an @ietf meeting! Internet democracy on stage. pic.twitter.com/nbAqP6nmRi
— Simon Pietro Romano (@spromano) July 19, 2015
As the Register UK reports, IETF members
'... have a strong independent streak, and many are still embarrassed by the fact that the NSA managed to crack a number of key internet protocols developed by the IETF and even subvert some of its working groups in their bid to develop new standards that would give the spooks easy access.'
Snowden's 2013 revelations that the NSA was collecting bulk telephone and internet metadata prompted an ongoing global debate over the role of government surveillance and the nature of individual privacy — a phenomenon termed by media critic Professor Jay Rosen as "the Snowden Effect".
For its part, the IETF responded to the leaks by developing a memorandum, known as a "Request for Comment" (RFC), entitled 'Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack'.
In his Q&A with the engineers on Monday, Snowden reiterated the dangers of invasive collection of information.
"People are being killed based on metadata, this is real," he said.
Read more @ https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/edward-snowden-calls-for-technologists-to-build-an-internet-for-the-people,7970
Nearly a year after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed top-secret details about the NSA's vast surveillance programs, the American public came out overwhelmingly in his favor. A poll commissioned by cloud storage service Tresorit in June 2014 found that 55 percent believed he did the right thing, while 29 percent did not. That support stands in stark contrast to American public opinion of another famous (or infamous) leak—the one by Chelsea Manning, the former private first class sentenced to 35 years in prison for handing over sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks. A Rasmussen poll conducted three years after her disclosures found 52 percent of Americans think she is a traitor, while 17 percent view her as a heroic whistleblower.
Nearly a year after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed top-secret details about the NSA's vast surveillance programs, the American public came out overwhelmingly in his favor. A poll commissioned by cloud storage service Tresorit in June 2014 found that 55 percent believed he did the right thing, while 29 percent did not.
That support stands in stark contrast to American public opinion of another famous (or infamous) leak—the one by Chelsea Manning, the former private first class sentenced to 35 years in prison for handing over sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks. A Rasmussen poll conducted three years after her disclosures found 52 percent of Americans think she is a traitor, while 17 percent view her as a heroic whistleblower.
Read more @ http://www.newsweek.com/glenn-greenwald-why-americans-prefer-edward-snowden-chelsea-manning-355644
Hear 'Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing' this Sunday afternoon at 5, on the KSUT Sunday Special. You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest. However, increasingly we are seeing whistleblowers punished more harshly than the alleged wrongdoers, who often seem to get off scot-free. Given the possibility of harsh retaliation, how should we understand our moral duty to tell the truth and reveal wrongdoing? Should we think of whistleblowers as selfless martyrs, as traitors, or as something else? Do we need to change the laws to provide greater protection for whistleblowers?
Hear 'Edward Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing' this Sunday afternoon at 5, on the KSUT Sunday Special.
You might think we each have a moral duty to expose any serious misconduct, dishonesty, or illegal activity we discover in an organization, especially when such conduct directly threatens the public interest.
However, increasingly we are seeing whistleblowers punished more harshly than the alleged wrongdoers, who often seem to get off scot-free.
Given the possibility of harsh retaliation, how should we understand our moral duty to tell the truth and reveal wrongdoing?
Should we think of whistleblowers as selfless martyrs, as traitors, or as something else? Do we need to change the laws to provide greater protection for whistleblowers?
Read more @ http://ksut.org/post/ksut-air-first-radio-interview-edward-snowden
Geez what an awful name…. Comey….. isn’t that what they call Communists? Comey short for Communist.
FBI Director James Comey today dismissed the idea of any plea deal with Edward Snowden, calling the ex-NSA contractor a “fugitive” who should be apprehended and brought to justice in the United States. Comey’s comments came two days after former Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to open the door to the idea of a possible deal with Snowden, telling Yahoo News in an interview that Snowden had “spurred a necessary debate” that led the U.S. government to curb the bulk collection of the records of Americans’ phone calls. But Comey took a decidedly different tack when asked about his former boss’ comments during a meeting with reporters at FBI headquarters. “My view is [Snowden is] a fugitive,” Comey said. “I’d love to apprehend him so he can enjoy the benefits of the freest and fairest criminal justice system in the world.”
FBI Director James Comey today dismissed the idea of any plea deal with Edward Snowden, calling the ex-NSA contractor a “fugitive” who should be apprehended and brought to justice in the United States.
Comey’s comments came two days after former Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to open the door to the idea of a possible deal with Snowden, telling Yahoo News in an interview that Snowden had “spurred a necessary debate” that led the U.S. government to curb the bulk collection of the records of Americans’ phone calls.
But Comey took a decidedly different tack when asked about his former boss’ comments during a meeting with reporters at FBI headquarters.
“My view is [Snowden is] a fugitive,” Comey said. “I’d love to apprehend him so he can enjoy the benefits of the freest and fairest criminal justice system in the world.”
Former Attorney General Eric Holder suggested the possibility of a deal exists, but there’s little substantial evidence of a shift in attitude from the Justice Department. WASHINGTON — Recent interviews with Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general, have spurred rumors that the U.S. government might offer Edward Snowden, the exiled NSA whistleblower, a plea bargain. Yet there’s little evidence such a deal actually exists and even less indication that Snowden would be interested if it did. Holder spoke with Yahoo! News last week, admitting that “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and “his actions spurred a necessary debate.” Holder went further in an interview with Huffington Post, noting: “A debate has been spurred in our country that I think at the end of the day has been a useful one and resulted in appropriate changes to the way in which we gather information.” However, Holder continues to insist that Snowden’s leaks were “extremely harmful to the United States,” even though no U.S. official has ever offered substantive evidence of this supposed harm. Instead, Holder told HuffPost’s Ryan J. Reilly that Snowden should have disclosed his concerns to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
WASHINGTON — Recent interviews with Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general, have spurred rumors that the U.S. government might offer Edward Snowden, the exiled NSA whistleblower, a plea bargain. Yet there’s little evidence such a deal actually exists and even less indication that Snowden would be interested if it did.
Holder spoke with Yahoo! News last week, admitting that “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and “his actions spurred a necessary debate.” Holder went further in an interview with Huffington Post, noting: “A debate has been spurred in our country that I think at the end of the day has been a useful one and resulted in appropriate changes to the way in which we gather information.” However, Holder continues to insist that Snowden’s leaks were “extremely harmful to the United States,” even though no U.S. official has ever offered substantive evidence of this supposed harm. Instead, Holder told HuffPost’s Ryan J. Reilly that Snowden should have disclosed his concerns to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The saga of Edward Snowden (1), the former analyst who purloined top secret NSA files and then went on a world-wide journey from Hawaii to Hong Kong and finally to Russia took an ominous turn recently as the UK Daily Mail reported (2). It seems that Russia and China have cracked encrypted portions of the files and have uncovered the identities of deep cover British and American agents (3) in both of those countries. The revelation has led intelligence agencies to withdraw their agents before they are picked up and interrogated. When Snowden fled from the United States, he presented himself as a whistleblower who uncovered what he believed to be abuses inflicted on the American people by the NSA and the CIA spying on them, gathering phone call and Internet information, and doing all of these things absent the usual protections the American legal system provides. Newsweek recently recounted (4) this aspect of Snowden’s feat in an approving tone, noting that the revelations led to changes in the Patriot Act, now called the Freedom Act, that restrained, to some degree, American ability to conduct spying on American citizens.
The saga of Edward Snowden (1), the former analyst who purloined top secret NSA files and then went on a world-wide journey from Hawaii to Hong Kong and finally to Russia took an ominous turn recently as the UK Daily Mail reported (2).
It seems that Russia and China have cracked encrypted portions of the files and have uncovered the identities of deep cover British and American agents (3) in both of those countries. The revelation has led intelligence agencies to withdraw their agents before they are picked up and interrogated.
When Snowden fled from the United States, he presented himself as a whistleblower who uncovered what he believed to be abuses inflicted on the American people by the NSA and the CIA spying on them, gathering phone call and Internet information, and doing all of these things absent the usual protections the American legal system provides.
Newsweek recently recounted (4) this aspect of Snowden’s feat in an approving tone, noting that the revelations led to changes in the Patriot Act, now called the Freedom Act, that restrained, to some degree, American ability to conduct spying on American citizens.
BERLIN: Germany's domestic intelligence chief said Tuesday that the revelations by Edward Snowden have had at least one positive effect, by raising awareness about the importance of counter-espionage. Hans-Georg Maassen told a gathering of business leaders in the southwestern city of Stuttgart that after the Cold War ended, the issue of counter-espionage was seen as unimportant, German news agency dpa reported. ``So maybe one can be grateful to Snowden that he has put a on the issue of counter-espionage in Germany,'' dpa quoted Maassen as saying. Germany's government reacted angrily two years ago to reports that Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone had been monitored by the U.S. National Security Agency. Although the reports didn't explicitly cite documents leaked to the media by Snowden, they came amid a flurry of similar claims about alleged U.S. surveillance in Germany that were linked to the former NSA contractor.
Israel is responsible for the 2008 murder of a top security aide of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to secret US intelligence files. Brigadier General Mohammed Sleiman was shot in the head and neck on August 1, 2008 by a small team of Israeli commandos as he enjoyed a dinner party at his luxury seaside home on the Syrian coast, said The Intercept website, citing the leaked files. The Israeli military team then escaped by sea. “The internal National Security Agency document, provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, is the first official confirmation that the assassination of Sleiman was an Israeli military operation,” said the website. The revelation “ends speculation that an internal dispute within the Syrian government led to his death,” it added. The NSA’s internal version of Wikipedia, “Intellipedia,” described the assassination near the port town of Tartus as the “first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official,” according to The Intercept. It cited three former US intelligence officers as saying that the document’s classification markings indicated that the NSA learned of the assassination through surveillance.
Israel is responsible for the 2008 murder of a top security aide of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to secret US intelligence files.
Brigadier General Mohammed Sleiman was shot in the head and neck on August 1, 2008 by a small team of Israeli commandos as he enjoyed a dinner party at his luxury seaside home on the Syrian coast, said The Intercept website, citing the leaked files.
The Israeli military team then escaped by sea.
“The internal National Security Agency document, provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, is the first official confirmation that the assassination of Sleiman was an Israeli military operation,” said the website.
The revelation “ends speculation that an internal dispute within the Syrian government led to his death,” it added.
The NSA’s internal version of Wikipedia, “Intellipedia,” described the assassination near the port town of Tartus as the “first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official,” according to The Intercept.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., hands me a copy of a letter from James Clapper in which the director of national intelligence complains to two members of the House Intelligence Committee about Massie’s recent attempts to reform one of the NSA’s massive surveillance programs. On the top right, in curly script, Massie has written his response: “Get a warrant.” It’s in red ink. He’s underlined it. “If you assume the worst” about the National Security Agency’s surveillance practices, Massie tells me, “it’s not a bad position to take, given what we’ve found out.” Indeed, for Massie, as with so many others, the information NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden gave journalists two years ago about the extraordinary sweep of U.S surveillance programs was a huge eye-opener. Prior to the Snowden revelations, Massie says, he knew almost nothing about the NSA’s implementation of the tools Congress gave it to protect national security. When he tried to find out more, in secret briefings and from his friends on the Intelligence Committee, he learned things he isn’t allowed to share. He tells me he is sure that there is more he doesn’t know — because it’s hard to know what to ask. “It’s ’20 questions’ — you don’t know what questions to ask,” he says. “There are concentric rings of knowledge” when it comes to surveillance. “I am on the outer ring.” But what he does know about NSA surveillance, aside from what Snowden released to the public, he doesn’t like. “There are line items we’re paying for …” he says, and shakes his head, unable to finish his sentence. Massie is one of several Tea Party Republicans, including presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and privacy hawk Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who have been fighting against NSA surveillance since soon after Snowden first revealed it. He joined Paul’s attempt to block renewal of portions of the Patriot Act in May, literally cheering him from the sidelines during Paul’s 10-and-a-half hour filibuster on the Senate floor. Eventually, with the passage of the USA Freedom Act in July, Paul and his camp saw their first victory: Section 215 of the Patriot Act , which the NSA had used to justify its bulk collection of American telephone data, was amended, forcing the NSA to shut down the current program in less than five months.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., hands me a copy of a letter from James Clapper in which the director of national intelligence complains to two members of the House Intelligence Committee about Massie’s recent attempts to reform one of the NSA’s massive surveillance programs.
On the top right, in curly script, Massie has written his response: “Get a warrant.” It’s in red ink. He’s underlined it.
“If you assume the worst” about the National Security Agency’s surveillance practices, Massie tells me, “it’s not a bad position to take, given what we’ve found out.”
Indeed, for Massie, as with so many others, the information NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden gave journalists two years ago about the extraordinary sweep of U.S surveillance programs was a huge eye-opener.
Prior to the Snowden revelations, Massie says, he knew almost nothing about the NSA’s implementation of the tools Congress gave it to protect national security.
When he tried to find out more, in secret briefings and from his friends on the Intelligence Committee, he learned things he isn’t allowed to share. He tells me he is sure that there is more he doesn’t know — because it’s hard to know what to ask. “It’s ’20 questions’ — you don’t know what questions to ask,” he says. “There are concentric rings of knowledge” when it comes to surveillance. “I am on the outer ring.”
But what he does know about NSA surveillance, aside from what Snowden released to the public, he doesn’t like. “There are line items we’re paying for …” he says, and shakes his head, unable to finish his sentence.
Massie is one of several Tea Party Republicans, including presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and privacy hawk Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who have been fighting against NSA surveillance since soon after Snowden first revealed it.
In June 2013, the biggest act of mass surveillance in the Internet age was exposed by Edward Snowden, a security analyst; Glenn Greenwald, a legal blogger; and Laura Poitras, a filmmaker. They collaborated to release the National Security Agency (NSA) files in The Guardian. The revelations raised a huge public debate, both about the ethics of the surveillance as well as the ethics of publishing the story. Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian, spoke to Hari Narayan about one of the most important journalistic projects undertaken by the publication. Excerpts: It’s been a little more than two years since the Snowden revelations. Has there been enough debate since then? The USA Freedom Act has done away with some provisions of the Patriot Act. But have the laws gone far enough? Well, I think the penny has dropped that this is a very complex thing; that this is not just about decisions made by security chiefs without anybody else having a say. Has there been enough debate? No, not enough, but at least there has been some debate. We’ve moved from a world in which the security services didn’t want any of this discussed to one in which they say, ‘We feel we can discuss it’. Is the Freedom Act enough? Well, I think it is up to each country to decide what its rules are. America has moved from a position of ‘The state will collect all this information’ to ‘It is not alright for the state to hold all the information. The telecom companies can hold it. We can establish a procedure by which we can ask for information’. That, to me, is an improvement. Whether that answers all the questions that Edward Snowden has raised… I doubt it. And technology is moving so fast that it is quite hard for the laws to keep up. NSA spied even on ally countries: Brazil, India, Germany. Brazil responded by passing an Internet Bill of Rights. Is the debate likely to expand in the rest of the developing world where Internet penetration is low? May be the developing world has an advantage because it has time to discuss this. The problem in the West was that all the technology was suddenly there. They felt ‘because we can do that, we will do it’. Now, the wiser heads in the intelligence community are thinking: ‘Was it right that we did it because we could’? So the advantage of, may be, not being so far down the digital journey for the developing world is that you have time to say, ‘Well, before we rush into it, let’s work out a discussion’. Mr. Greenwald in No Place to Hide says that security officials boasted about how surveillance helps the U.S. to dominate the rest of the world, not just in security but also in financial and economic interests. The U.S., for instance, targeted Petrobras. Will legislation be enough to curb this kind of overreach? How the Internet is governed is something most people have no idea about. I only have a hazy idea about the protocol by which the security and the encryption of the Internet works. The Americans were a bit embarrassed when all of this [revelations about snooping on other countries] came up because they had designed architecture for the Internet. Then other countries found this out and turned on them. For legislation to catch up with surveillance, should MPs hire someone from the security agencies to advise them? My instinct is that a lot of the people on the other side of the world [legislators] are not very technologically clued-up. We need experts from different fields — specialists on encryption, on privacy, on civil liberties — having a voice in that. In the post-Snowden world, we have to work out what that oversight mechanism is going to be. In the U.K., the David Cameron government is not very enthusiastic about the David Anderson report that advocated judicial warrant before mass collection. Have British legislators been somewhat tolerant? There is a general point that applies to legislators around the world: they don’t want to be seen as being soft on security. If a bomb goes off, people are going to turn around and say, ‘Well, you are the one who stopped our agency’. No politician wants to be in that situation. So, politicians generally find this a very difficult subject to deal with. I think politicians are hampered by not wanting to be blamed. Countries do think about these things differently. Germany has had a terrible history. The Germans don’t like Google Street View. Everybody else in the world thinks this is quite interesting. In Germany, this is a horrible idea. Google had to behave differently there. But in Britain, we haven’t had to deal with agencies that behave badly. The Americans have. They have had FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and Hoover.
In June 2013, the biggest act of mass surveillance in the Internet age was exposed by Edward Snowden, a security analyst; Glenn Greenwald, a legal blogger; and Laura Poitras, a filmmaker. They collaborated to release the National Security Agency (NSA) files in The Guardian. The revelations raised a huge public debate, both about the ethics of the surveillance as well as the ethics of publishing the story. Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian, spoke to Hari Narayan about one of the most important journalistic projects undertaken by the publication. Excerpts:
It’s been a little more than two years since the Snowden revelations. Has there been enough debate since then? The USA Freedom Act has done away with some provisions of the Patriot Act. But have the laws gone far enough?
Well, I think the penny has dropped that this is a very complex thing; that this is not just about decisions made by security chiefs without anybody else having a say. Has there been enough debate? No, not enough, but at least there has been some debate. We’ve moved from a world in which the security services didn’t want any of this discussed to one in which they say, ‘We feel we can discuss it’.
Is the Freedom Act enough? Well, I think it is up to each country to decide what its rules are. America has moved from a position of ‘The state will collect all this information’ to ‘It is not alright for the state to hold all the information. The telecom companies can hold it. We can establish a procedure by which we can ask for information’. That, to me, is an improvement. Whether that answers all the questions that Edward Snowden has raised… I doubt it. And technology is moving so fast that it is quite hard for the laws to keep up.
NSA spied even on ally countries: Brazil, India, Germany. Brazil responded by passing an Internet Bill of Rights. Is the debate likely to expand in the rest of the developing world where Internet penetration is low?
May be the developing world has an advantage because it has time to discuss this. The problem in the West was that all the technology was suddenly there. They felt ‘because we can do that, we will do it’. Now, the wiser heads in the intelligence community are thinking: ‘Was it right that we did it because we could’? So the advantage of, may be, not being so far down the digital journey for the developing world is that you have time to say, ‘Well, before we rush into it, let’s work out a discussion’.
Mr. Greenwald in No Place to Hide says that security officials boasted about how surveillance helps the U.S. to dominate the rest of the world, not just in security but also in financial and economic interests. The U.S., for instance, targeted Petrobras. Will legislation be enough to curb this kind of overreach?
How the Internet is governed is something most people have no idea about. I only have a hazy idea about the protocol by which the security and the encryption of the Internet works. The Americans were a bit embarrassed when all of this [revelations about snooping on other countries] came up because they had designed architecture for the Internet. Then other countries found this out and turned on them.
For legislation to catch up with surveillance, should MPs hire someone from the security agencies to advise them?
My instinct is that a lot of the people on the other side of the world [legislators] are not very technologically clued-up. We need experts from different fields — specialists on encryption, on privacy, on civil liberties — having a voice in that. In the post-Snowden world, we have to work out what that oversight mechanism is going to be.
In the U.K., the David Cameron government is not very enthusiastic about the David Anderson report that advocated judicial warrant before mass collection. Have British legislators been somewhat tolerant?
There is a general point that applies to legislators around the world: they don’t want to be seen as being soft on security. If a bomb goes off, people are going to turn around and say, ‘Well, you are the one who stopped our agency’. No politician wants to be in that situation. So, politicians generally find this a very difficult subject to deal with. I think politicians are hampered by not wanting to be blamed. Countries do think about these things differently. Germany has had a terrible history. The Germans don’t like Google Street View. Everybody else in the world thinks this is quite interesting. In Germany, this is a horrible idea. Google had to behave differently there. But in Britain, we haven’t had to deal with agencies that behave badly. The Americans have. They have had FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and Hoover.
Businessman and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump says if he’s elected president, Russian President Vladimir Putin would turn over former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. “If I’m president, Putin says ‘hey, boom — you’re gone’ — I guarantee you that,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with CNN. Mr. Trump called Mr. Snowden, who faces Espionage Act charges for his role in leaking information about the NSA’s phone-snooping program, a “total traitor” and said he “would deal with him harshly.” “And if I were president, Putin would give him over. I would get along with Putin. I’ve dealt with Russia,” Mr. Trump said. “He would never keep somebody like Snowden in Russia — he hates [President] Obama; he doesn’t respect Obama. Obama doesn’t like him either. But he has no respect for Obama, has a hatred for Obama, and Snowden is living the life,” he said. Mr. Trump, who is at or near the top of recent polling on the 2016 GOP presidential field, also said he’s not interested in a vice presidential position if he doesn’t win the party’s nomination.
Businessman and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump says if he’s elected president, Russian President Vladimir Putin would turn over former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
“If I’m president, Putin says ‘hey, boom — you’re gone’ — I guarantee you that,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with CNN.
Mr. Trump called Mr. Snowden, who faces Espionage Act charges for his role in leaking information about the NSA’s phone-snooping program, a “total traitor” and said he “would deal with him harshly.”
“And if I were president, Putin would give him over. I would get along with Putin. I’ve dealt with Russia,” Mr. Trump said.
“He would never keep somebody like Snowden in Russia — he hates [President] Obama; he doesn’t respect Obama. Obama doesn’t like him either. But he has no respect for Obama, has a hatred for Obama, and Snowden is living the life,” he said.
Mr. Trump, who is at or near the top of recent polling on the 2016 GOP presidential field, also said he’s not interested in a vice presidential position if he doesn’t win the party’s nomination.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact