AT&T Forwarding All Internet Traffic to NSA? 682
An anonymous reader writes "SpamDailyNews is reporting that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a brief that claims AT&T has been forwarding internet traffic directly into the hands of the NSA. The brief was filed under seal (a procedure that allows only the judge and the litigants to view the document) in order to give the court time to review the information. From the article: 'More than just threatening individuals' privacy, AT&T's apparent choice to give the government secret, direct access to millions of ordinary Americans' Internet communications is a threat to the Constitution itself. We are asking the Court to put a stop to it now.'"
Coincidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading your comment I think thought, "And perhaps this is why Net Neutrality will never happen."
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA. This is about the GOVERNMENT. Just because ATT is giving them information doesn't make it legal. It is still illegal wiretapping.
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Funny)
--jeffk++
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, just as what I'm doing now is "typing" although there's not a typewriter in the house.
It's still "wiretapping" when it's wireless, as this message will be when I hit the "Submit" button.
For that matter, that thingie is still a "button" although it's just made of pixels on the screen, and will cease to "exist" milliseconds after I "hit" it.
If we're not careful, this could lead to a deep discussion on the nature of reality. Or at least the nature of linguistic referents.
Here goes
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they're more a shell corporation that exists partly so that this sort of logic can be used to exempt them from legal restrictions (such as the Bill of Rights) than would apply to a government agency. They have always been a government agency in all but the legal niceties.
Their basic business involves selling something that pretty much has to be done by a government agency. Otherwise, we'd have the scenario of hundreds or thousands of companies running wires down our streets. At any given time, half those wires would be down, the streets would be impassible by vehicles, and our kids and pets would be in danger of electrocution if they wandered outside. So the government outlaw such wiring, except to strictly regulated corporations.
(This isn't hypothetical. Here in Boston, we've had several large dogs electrocuted by contact with a manhole cover, and in New York, at least one human has died this way. The pseudo-private electric companies haven't been punished in any meaningful way for these deaths.)
The problem is that in the US and many other countries, there are legal restrictions on how a government agency can (mis)use this wiring. The Bill of Rights guarantees us freedom of speech, assembly, and so on. A government agency couldn't enforce a "no servers" rule, for instance; we'd just say "First Ammendment", and the courts would rule in our favor. A government agency couldn't legally restrict our use of the wires, just as they can't restrict our use of the roads, unless they could show that we're engaged in illegal activities. A government agency couldn't intercept and record our traffic without a court order.
But AT&T can legally do all these things, because legally they're "not government". They are created by the government, their monopoly is enforced by the government, and they are at the mercy of the government for their regulated profits. So they act like a government agency, but one without the need to abide by such silly restrictions as the Bill of Rights.
We're just seeing one of the more blatant violations of the Bill of Rights that this legal arrangement makes possible.
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop repeating this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stop repeating this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Start using it, get everyone you know to use it. Encrypt everything.
Exactly. Those of us who are Internet old-timers have long understood that the online world is in fact totally open. There is no privacy online. Never has been, and never will be.
You should always assume that everything here is visible to everyone, and may be archived at lots of places you don't know about. The NSA's archives are just one of many places where our words and pictures are being enshrined for posterity. Consider, for example, that every email you've ever sent is potentially available to every prospective employer, and to all your relatives and friends.
There is nothing much any of us can do about this. If you don't like this, don't put things online. This includes email. As soon as it goes out of your machine, you have no way of knowing who has a copy.
Encryption is partly successful at fighting this. If you've used a good encryption scheme, reading your words will be very expensive for a bystander, so they won't do it without good reason. But with enough computing power, most encryption other than a truly random one-time pad can be broken. And computing power is getting cheaper, so with time, the cost of decrypting your stuff will drop. So it will mostly buy you time before your stuff can be read by everyone.
The real problem now is that, while everything on the Internet is potentially visible to those with political and economic power, the opposite isn't true. Imagine the effects if everything in every government and corporate office (and neighborhood bar
OK; what would mostly happen is that in most cases the onlookers would fall asleep. But it's interesting to think of a world in which we could access all of our own governments' and employers' information. This could go a long way toward loosening their power over us.
There have been a few sci-fi novels written that deal with such a scenario. Anyone want to mention their favorite?
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
The feds--and many economists--have no problem with AT&T essentially reassembling itself because competition exists today that did not exist in the past. Cable companies, wireless companies and straight VoIP providers can all provide telephone service in direct competition with typical land-line phone companies. The phone companies are also competing with those companies on THEIR domains (for example, video over Internet lines--the reason they're interested in laying fiber all of the sudden).
These new forms of competition are also, undoubtedly, why you are hearing phone companies beginning to make a stink about charging people to carry traffic over their pipes.
Laying fiber? (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK, the only fiber they're interested in laying is to span that last-mile to the home... something they swore up and down they were going to do ten years ago. And they got xx billions in tax breaks + fees for it.
There's plenty of unlit fiber lying around, just not in the last mile.
The "phone companies beginning to make a stink about charging people to carry traffic over their pipes" because they're looking at the next 10 years and thinking "Crap, the marketplace is getting saturated & prices are going to come down. How are we going to continue growing?"
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:4, Informative)
If Google can index the entire web with spiders that have to actually go out and find the data they're indexing, I think it's fairly likely the NSA can process information that's fed directly to them by internet providers.
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably a joke but he definitely got me thinking about the scale that they were on
Echelon anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
The NSA has more computing power and human analyst brainpower than is probably believable.
Back in the days when I did NeXT machines and software development, I heard that the NSA bought 400 NeXT cubes. The joke was "of course they did...saves them a ton of money on black paint!"
I later heard that the NSA liked the fact that the magnesium case was a pretty effective RF shield.
And then I got to see a NeXT app, Zilla, that let you build an early parallel processing system. Now, 400 Motorola 68040 CPUs isn't a Cray, but it's close. NeXT used 50 cubes to crunch on Fermat's Theorem and got throughout similar to a Cray YMP48 (this was 1990-91, so I may be fuzzy on this, but that's what I think I heard)
So, if the NSA was dorking with massively parallel systems 15-20 years ago, where are they today?
Personally, I think they have the data acquisition capability...with or without AT&T, the processing power, and plenty of human talent to build the data sieves to extract something useful.
Wait a minute...there's a knock at my door................
Re:Echelon anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
My guess is that calls are probably stored for the duration of the cal
Re:The fall of small r Repubs & rise of survei (Score:4, Interesting)
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
And from Eisenhower:
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Very precient, both of them.
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Funny)
Will they open documents? (Score:5, Interesting)
As TFA says:
I can't think of any possible justification for the documents to be kept sealed, but I wouldn't be suprised if the government wades in complaining that these document are directly related to National Security, and, should therefore be kept sealed, or claim that it would endanger their own investigations [washingtonpost.com].
You think Verizon is different? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the policy side, this is an issue of trust and secrecy. This kind of intelligence operation is something you want to be available due to its good uses (and don't want to know about it), but you are afraid of because of the way the government can abuse it. The current administration has greatly reduced my trust in the professionalism of the US intelligence agencies to the point where I'm willing to support this kind of lawsuit.
Re:You think Verizon is different? (Score:5, Interesting)
It has been intimated in the press that George W. Bush's illegal wire tapping went much deeper than has been admitted to. This is it. All Internet and Voice communications in the United States of America is now or was at some point being recorded by the NSA. It makes sense and it was certainly not just AT&T. Sure you can write that it was only a selected few messages or phone conversations that actually were brought to the attention of real people at NSA, probably measured in the tens of thousands out of many millions of people. But the computers, which were programmed by people, went through every message of every conversation. It is the only way to wiretap the internet in a centralized way without actually physically tapping wires.
When George Walker Bush says they only intercepted messages of terrorists and terrorist associates, it is a lie. They intercept everything and sorted it out later. What he is trying to assure you of is that they don't really care about what you had to say unless you are plotting terrorism, which is probably largely true. But how long until such a powerful tool is directed towards lesser threats? We already know that during the 90's NSA intercepted foreign communications regarding a civilian airbus deal were used by US government to help Boeing win European civilian contracts. How was that for a national security purpose? I am sure they went through mental hoops to think what they were doing was right. And before the mid 1970's the FBI used domestic terrorism as an excuse to wiretap political civil rights and anti war activists when there was no reasonable expectation that these groups or individuals would resort to violence in support of their causes.
A free society must choose to be free.
It is indeed scary (Score:4, Insightful)
I seriously doubt that the vast majority of internet traffic and/or telephone traffic could be stored for later easy access (or at least access at a much later time). You have problems of information overload and quite frankly data storage as well.
The problem is not in the idea that the calls are probably being stored, but that every call is being passively monitored (and temporarily recorded). In essence, everyone must operate under the assumption that every telephone call, every email, and every post to Slashdot is at least passively being passively watched by Big Brother. The potential for chilling effects in areas such as discussing whether the Hamas victory in the PA elections is a good thing is pretty high, what the real meaning of "Jihad" is, etc.
In essence, this creates a widespread, if passive, surveillance structure which creates a chilling effect on legitimate political discussions. If you think it only effects terrorists, you are incredibly mistaken. It effects anyone who takes an interest in Middle-Eastern politics, anyone who wants to have religious discussions online with Muslims, and anyone who is afraid he/she might have had a runin with people who might be watched by even rogue members of the NSA.
This is exactly the danger that the 1st and 4th ammendments were designed to prevent.
Re:You think Verizon is different? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not legal to flood LA with crack [pbs.org] to fund military coops in South America. Never stopped the CIA. What makes you think this is any different? What makes you think they actually follow the law?
Is your brain turned on today? ;-)
Re:Will they open documents? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are certainly tools that can track and record every byte sent on every port on a saturated 100 MHz link, and write it to local disk. Given that the trans-atlantic links are rarely GigE capable, a rack of such devices should easily monitor and re-assemble all the traffic desired. www.sandstorm.com, for example, sells exactly that sort of monitoring tool called "Netintercept", commercially. There's no reason to think the NSA doesn't use them or hasn't reverse engineered them.
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
TATs are *more* than Gigabit capable (Score:5, Informative)
TAT-14 [wikipedia.org], the newest iteration of US-to-UK transatlantic communication cable, consists of 32 STM-64 circuits. Each STM-64 is capable of nearly 10 Gbps...
Re:Will they open documents? (Score:3, Informative)
How about a variety of encryption systems [wikipedia.org] dating all the way back to post-WWII.
I know you probably meant that as a joke but the clipper chip was also invented by the NSA. Although it was controversial (allowing the government to listen to communication) the idea of key escrow did stay with us. Most of them use algorithms/techniques such as D
i use comcast, try this-nimrod (Score:4, Informative)
Tracing route to slashdot.org [66.35.250.150]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
**CUT SOME**
5 56 ms 52 ms 62 ms te-2-1-ar01.absecon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.86
6 59 ms 69 ms 64 ms po10-ar01.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.86.2
08.22]
7 58 ms 55 ms 52 ms 68.86.211.10
8 56 ms 69 ms 58 ms 12.118.114.17
9 62 ms 57 ms 60 ms tbr1-p012301.phlpa.ip.att.net [12.123.137.62]
10 68 ms 59 ms 59 ms tbr1-cl8.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.2.17]
11 65 ms 57 ms 62 ms ar5-a300s5.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.123.0.89]
See lines 9, 10, 11? see the part at the end? att.net? guess what that means?
try a tracert yourself.
Never thought I'd see the day... (Score:3, Interesting)
The last straw (Score:2)
I, as should everyone, will speak to them with my wallet. They have lost my local, long distance and data services.
Re:The last straw (Score:3, Funny)
Call in and bitch about the service being too slow.
Fire up BitTorrent, and start downloading Linux distros like there's no tomorrow. And seed them. All of them. Don't throttle the upload, either. (and, of course, disable BitTorrent when they're on a service call)
One big question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One big question (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry. He'll be hunted down.
Re:One big question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One big question (Score:3, Insightful)
I especialy like this bit though:
"Mark Klein is a true American hero," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "He has bravely come forward with information critical for proving AT&T's involvement with the government's invasive surveillance program."
So GI Joe has stopped being the "true American hero", and passed the honours on to a retired, balding computer-geek
Anyway, guess we'll have to see how this plays out in court.
I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC services (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, the cell phone has to be analog. Digital phones don't give you this option, due to the lossy compression.
Alternately, get a VOIP service that works with fax systems (important - takes more bandwidth, costs more money, but has not as lossy compression as cheap VOIP), and a good UPS.
Easy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Easy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Easy (Score:4, Informative)
It is just a matter of duplicating all the packets that traverses a router. Properly done you will not notice this.
Out of control ? (Score:3, Insightful)
at what point do you realise that the current administration is out of control , perhaps when soldiers are knocking on your door ?
seems like the enemy is very much within, isn't democracy wonderful
Re:Out of control ? (Score:5, Funny)
Which is exactly why we need a state crackdown, and to spy on our own civilians! Who knows what the Enemy Within might be plotting? It would be disastrous if one of these people, with no respect for the rights and traditions of Western civilisation, were to infiltrate the corridors of power - imagine the damage that could be done!
Re:Out of control ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think a lot of us have realized it was out of control for quite some time. However aside from voting and writing our congress critters and protesting and trying to stir things up in the media, we are left with few to zero direct options for fixing the situation.
In the old days if you didn't like your government, you would take up arms and overthrow them or have them arrested. These days the government is above the law, and if you were to take up arms against them you would either be killed or considered a terrorist and secretly shipped away to some torture camp.
Honestly, what other options do we have? As much as I love fighting the good fight...I'm strongly considering moving to another country at this point, although from the looks of things globally, it doesn't really seem like there are any places that much better off!
I'm so sick of "Current Administration" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, they're scum. Name anyone who ever ran for President and got more than 40% of the vote without betraying America and selling us out so that they could afford the best TV ads.
The real problem is that the federal government has this power to begin with. The fact that they abuse it, is totally uninteresting, because it's so expected. You give a gun to chimps and then wonder why someone got shot. I look at the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, etc, and wonder why the chimp is armed.
If you want an America that doesn't suck, then make it so that it doesn't matter who is president or who gets into Congress, because the positions would wield so little power. And the good news is, the Constitution is already written to support this. We just have to call them on it, and Just Say No every time they try to pass a law based on the justification that something is expedient or efficient or "seems like a good idea."
And I'm so sick of over generalization (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit. They're not all the same. Some are definitely, demonstrably better or worse than others. The "Current Administration," in my opinion, will go down in history
Re:Out of control ? (Score:3, Insightful)
There seem to be two kinds of people. Those who are willing to give up rights that don't seem that important to them in exchange for a little extra "security" and those who don't want to give up their rights under any circumstances.
The first group needs to wake up and realize that once you give your rights away, they are not coming back. This stuff only goes one way. The government will take every inch that is given to them (and then some) and never yield. It may not seem like such a big deal to have
Re:Out of control ? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was shot down, where did it crash? People tend to report flaming airplane wreckage in their back yards.
If it landed safely, how did all the ATCs between Dulles and LAX miss it? Did The Conspiracy eliminate them, too?
Did The Conspiracy eliminate the passengers and crew once they landed? And the aircrews servicing the plane?
Maybe The Conspiracy is actually in charge of all the ATCs, and all ground crews. My God, alert Kos!
Gee, how long will it take... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gee, how long will it take... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the issues in the elections, its all about gay marriage (taking away someone's rights to make them live the way you want them to) and other meaningless bullshit. No one is going to get elected running on a platform of restoring personal freedom. And that's truly sad.
Re:Gee, how long will it take... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gee, how long will it take... (Score:5, Insightful)
The scariest part is I don't know how true that is. Now I have no scientific polling or anything but just the people I speak to it seems the majority have the opinion:
- If your not doing anything wrong what are you worried about?
or
- Well we have to take care of our national security first before any rights really matter
That a government will so readily abuse its power is certainly not a suprise (disturbing but entirely predictable). However, the ease with which so many citizens seem ready to give up protections we have taken for granted is the scariest part (at least to me).
Re:Gee, how long will it take... (Score:3, Insightful)
the majority, and the Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority. This only works
as long as the Constitution is honored. We now live in a culture where many
people care little about others, as long as they themselves have their freedoms. Politicians are
free to ignore the Constitution, as long as their actions only injure a minority of the voters.
How do we change the current culture of self-absorption t
Volume? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would be nice to have a look at that kit.
Email isn't protected communications. (Score:4, Insightful)
Before anyone screams that they should be protected just remember if it was protected then using a network sniffer would become illegal! You can not have it both ways.
If you want private communications then use encryption, the phone, or send a letter.
The person that wrote this was trying to inflame people or doesn't understand what communications are protected and are not.
Re:Email isn't protected communications. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Email isn't protected communications. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Email isn't protected communications. (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be true, but there are provisions which are intended to prevent undue surveilance and the like.
Handing everything over, wholesale, for no good reason, without oversight just because they want it? Come on, if that's not a violation of the intent, and probably the letter, o
Re:Email isn't protected communications. (Score:3, Informative)
Might the odd person take a look at it? Sure. But if they all went through an intelligence agency for scanning and fingerprinting (equivalent of source IP) I would say that violates my understanding of privacy. Same way that when I move in public, someone might follow my movements.
Re:Email isn't protected communications. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Email isn't protected communications. (Score:3, Informative)
Damn that's a lot of Data (Score:2)
It's more likely that the NSA just has Taps into the lines and can sort through the streams as they pass by.
if someone tell's me it's for homeland security to monitor our own citizens in such a fashion I would begin to demand we impeach Bush.
One can only truely lead by example. So if your a fear mongering warlord wanna-be so will your population be held in fear.
Re:Damn that's a lot of Data (Score:5, Interesting)
1999 was while Clinton was still president, BTW.
(Posted anonymously, for obvious reasons. Though I've probably given enough information that they could narrow it down to about 10 people.)
Maybe (Score:2)
Kent: Hordes of panicky people seem to be evacuating the town for
some unknown reason. Professor, without knowing precisely
what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers
to crack each other's heads open and f
It begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Tried it once (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It begins (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It begins (Score:5, Informative)
Even if 99% of the population *were* upset to the point of demanding change, what could they do? The soap box doesn't work because we live in a system where only two parties have the power, and where anyone else simply does not and never will stand a chance. The ballot box doesn't work because elections are manipulated. The jury box doesn't work because the "president" simply declares himself to be above the law, because congress is controlled by his own party as well, and because the courts are either powerless themselves (the lower courts) or gleichgeschaltet [wikipedia.org] (SCOTUS). And finally, the ammo box won't work for the above reasons.
I still like to think that things aren't *that* bad... and maybe they aren't, compared to other countries like China. But I also really wonder whether what we see is only the tip of the iceberg, and if the iceberg itself isn't just as big as that in China, for example. Sure, you won't get arrested for being a member of a minor party, for example, but that may just be because there's no way for you to change things, anyway - you're being allowed the have the illusion that you can change things, which keeps you from seeing what things *really* are like and from *really* trying to change them.
Re:It begins (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It begins (Score:3, Interesting)
And another one is that an armed rebellion simply isn't viable anymore these days.
I disagree. The US has a great deal of ability to lay waste to large areas. They can't do that within the US and not just growing a larger resistance. As you may have noted from Iraq, people get upset when you drop bombs on them and murder their relatives and friends.
Small arms and improvised munitions in the US are very effective and plentiful. People with experience using them are common. In a real rebellion a significan
Re:It begins (Score:3, Insightful)
A revolution might not be able to hop in tanks and slug it out with an armored division, but superior strategy and tactics can still win. It's a matter of knowing how to pit your strengths against the enemies weaknesses. Take the fight on your terms, not the enemies. Another book I'd recommend is "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. Which you should read anyways, while mainly written about warfare it r
Re:It begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Separation of... (Score:2, Insightful)
Details... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, are they talking about forwarding ALL AT&T traffic to NSA? I find that really really hard to believe. How much data is that? Can someone point to some known tech that can handle that....ALL that data? I'm not asking for "secret-I-bet-they-have-cold-fusion-computers" BS tech that someone *thinks* the NSA has.
Second, this is just an accusation. There's one guy that has some documents that say that's what AT&T is doing. For all we know, this guy could be wearing tin-foil hats and singing to his dog about the aliens. He's doing this through the EFF, which to me doesn't lend much to this accusation, considering how they've handled things in the past. They don't exactly have a great track record.
We need details, people, details.
Re:Details... (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is that NSA probably do it the same way Google do it. No magic voodoo hardware, but clever software running on a huge cluster of regular commodity boxes. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Googles, and you're probably not far off.
Re:Details... I've got details. (Score:5, Interesting)
You had it right in your first sentence. AT&T is forwarding all of their call data to the NSA. The NSA doesn't need any super-cool tech in order to intercept this data since AT&T (and the other telecom companies) simply send this data directly to them. Don't get me wrong, though - the NSA has some amazing technology. All of this data is processed, filtered, tagged and entered into a massive database.
I'm currently reading Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency [amazon.com] by James Bamford. It's not light reading, but it's fascinating....and extremely disturbing. The fascinating part is that we've been here before. This exact scenario already happened in the 60's and 70's, until information about it was leaked (by the NY Times, no less) and it was investigated by the Church Committee [wikipedia.org] circa 1975. It was called Project SHAMROCK [wikipedia.org] then, and it involved the phone companies and Western Union delivering huge magnetic tape reels to the NSA on a regular basis. The project was so secret that only a few people within the NSA where even aware of it.
Until the Congressional investigation, hardly anybody within the White House or Justice Department had even heard whispers of it. Congress, of course, was completely out of the loop. This obsession with secrecy goes back to the very founding of the NSA. The NSA operated with no Congressional oversight for decades (it was called "No Such Agency"), and its existance probably wasn't even constitutionally legal/valid, but the information that it provided to other agencies (mostly the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) was so good that by the time Congress found out about it, it was indispensible. Today the NSA is the largest of the intelligence agencies (yes you read that right - larger than the CIA), although its exact budget is classified.
Second, this is just an accusation. There's one guy that has some documents that say that's what AT&T is doing. For all we know, this guy could be wearing tin-foil hats and singing to his dog about the aliens.
The only loonies around here are the people who think that the government isn't spying on Americans every single day. Now, that doesn't mean that they are listening to you in real time, and hanging on your every word. But all/most of your calls are recorded, digitized and handed to the NSA. From there, it is probably entered into a massive database. From there they can filter out unimportant calls and use data mining techniques to pull up relevant information. They use the ECHELON [wikipedia.org] computer software to sift through information, which probably works similar to Google, with keyword searches and a list of search results.
If you still don't believe me, why don't you have a conversation with a friend, where you discuss planting bombs around town. See how long it takes the feds to show up.
What does it take? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what the irony in this is? We make hideous fun of countries like China where this kind of thing is standard operating procedure, but when we do it, it's supposedly to protect us from the terrorists. How does something like this come about?
I can't repeat this quote enough:
The question burning in my mind is this: How much will it take? How far does the government have to go before everyone says, "Enough!" and finally recognizes the greater danger that we're all in? How badly does our government have to act before people take up the call to arms and start rioting in the streets of this outrageous behavior?
For all the I-have-nothing-to-hiders out there, let me make it clear: I do have things that I'd rather stay hidden, and it's none of your damn business, and none of George W. Bush's damn business, what they are. And whenever a government goober tells me, "Trust me," that's the first sign that I shouldn't. We shouldn't have to blindly trust the government, that's why we friggin' fought England over 200 years ago!
Needless to say, I'm sure as hell glad I don't have AT&T, because it saves me the trouble of cancelling my account and writing a nasty letter about why.
Re:What does it take? (Score:3, Interesting)
How is that news ? (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if you are a customer (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not ALL internet traffic (Score:3, Interesting)
Still an egregious abuse of privacy, IMHO, and one of the reasons I donate to the EFF.
Affects more than US citizens/victims (Score:4, Informative)
The only viable way to keep traffic off of AT&T's network is for other backbone providers to refuse to route traffic through AT&T, and get alternative peering agreements up with other BB providers. This may not be a viable option, however, since AT&T carries enough traffic volume for the Internet that to effectively 'kick them off' the Internet may cause other BB providers to experience very heavy traffic loads.
If I was the government of a non-US country, I'd be canceling AT&T contracts today, given that AT&T did this on the sly.
slogan (Score:3, Funny)
To the NSA.
(Thanks EFF)
Shamrock lives! (Score:5, Insightful)
why do people presume any privacy at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait...
Nevermind. Nothing to see here, move on please.
Regulation is the first step towards tyranny (Score:4, Interesting)
Where the federal government has any power over communications is beyond me -- the interstate commerce clause was written so that the federal government could prevent states from intruding on commerce -- no tariffs, no taxes, no abusive cartels. The federal government itself was not given power to actually reduce trade but improve it.
The more we believe that government is helping us, the more we'll be paying in taxes, a declining dollar, and a loss of rights that no one gives us but nature.
Who is this? Prank caller, prank caller! (Score:3, Funny)
Are you messenging me on AT&T? I don't know you. Who is this? Don't come here, I'm closing the window! Prank caller, prank caller!
Is EFF playing with fire? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not my problem (Score:4, Funny)
But wait a minute...
Seems like a good time to mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know... if you're into that sort of thing...
(Of course, using it just proves that you have something to hide... so maybe you'll get in trouble anyway.)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
You must be one of them!
Re:Constitutional violation (Score:3, Insightful)
The right to a trial (jose padilla)
Due process (rest of the gitmo detainees)
Protection from cruel and usual punishment (um, hello?)
Right to peaceably assemble (protests at RNC and Presidential Inauguration)
Prevention of the federal government from assuming powers not granted in the constitution (war on drugs)
Get in line, bub.
Re:Well, this sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:how sad (Score:5, Insightful)
When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't.
Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.
Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.
And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.
In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.
There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice.
Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest.
Stop for a second and try to fathom that.
At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.
This, in the United States of America. This in the United States of America. Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed?
Re:how sad (Score:5, Insightful)
It surprises you that no one complains about the detention without trial of a few thousand people who are accused of terrorism in a country where no one complained about the dentention of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans who weren't even accused of anything? You obviously have a higher opinion of your fellow citizens than most of them deserve.
Re:Can't believe this..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you referring to the same congress which sat idle while the Executive branch took a hot carl on FISA, and illegally wiretapped an untold number of telephone calls? The congress which has abdicated its constitutional responsibility, by allowing the Executive to tacitly declare and wage war on a foreign nation? Done nothing of substance to preserve and protect the human rights of persons imprisoned as terrorist suspects or 'enem