Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Document 559

Posted by Hemos
from the the-full-monty-of-information dept.
ifitzgerald writes "This morning, Wired News released the full text of the AT&T NSA wiretap documents that are currently under court seal. From the article: 'AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released. Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy. As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Document

Comments Filter:
  • by Rachel Lucid (964267) on Monday May 22, 2006 @09:52AM (#15379871) Homepage Journal
    I think our boys at Wired are in trouble now, no?
  • by Kell_pt (789485) on Monday May 22, 2006 @09:53AM (#15379878) Homepage
    It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T. I sincerely hope nothing wrong comes out of this to them. But knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"! :)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:07AM (#15380002)
      Small risk considering the government will will their stay with the States Secret Act. The original case will never go to trial and AT&T will be unable to launch a case against Wired because it can't show how the documents caused harm without identifying the harm, which in turn would violate the States Secret Act.
    • by IAmTheDave (746256) <[basenamedave-sd] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:34AM (#15380199) Homepage Journal
      It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T... knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"!

      And for that, I have incredible respect for their editors, allowing such actions to continue, indeed showing that they are willing to take a stand against the assault on press freedoms that have been a regular marching call of the current administration.

      Not that I didn't have a lot of respect for Wired before... but if there is a preemtive legal fund, let me know where to contribute.

      I know /. probably isn't the right place to say "Thank You" to Wired, but I'll do it here first, and then email them next.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:37AM (#15380225)
      Or AT&T could just shut down Wired's link to the 'net. Wired is an AT&T backbone customer.
  • Thank you Wired.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Monday May 22, 2006 @09:54AM (#15379888) Homepage Journal
    I am now a subscriber to your magazine.

    Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.

    This administration deserves neither loyalty nor love.

    Expecting the conservative mod down in 3..2..1
    • by Buelldozer (713671) <cliff AT gindulis DOT net> on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:01AM (#15379947)
      No true conservative would mod you down for your statement. Of course around here that is likely to be little comfort.

      I'm glad that they released the full text of the "secret" documents. This kind of this should be open for public review in the first place.

      All good and loyal citizens should be clamoring for a public review of the actions taken by the N.S.A., and this administration, against it's citizens.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:18AM (#15380082)
      Any real conservative would applaud you for your post. It's often thought of that the Republicans are "conservatives". That is incorrect, however. They are not truly conservative in any way.

      Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers. They are sickened by any limits on the freedom of expression, especially when it comes to political correctness or legislation that prevents the release of documents as in this case. A true conservative would be happy that you were able to openly present your view on this matter, and they would support you in every way, even if they did disagree with you. A real conservative would likely even be disappointed that there's a moderation system here.

      Many of those who pass themselves off as Republicans today are not conservatives at all, even if they claim that they are. At best, they're neo-conservatives, but even then that's a misleading title. What they have done is take the worst of liberalism, and added extreme feelings of nationalism and religion to it. It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society. That is indeed why the Republicans are popular with rednecks in the US, for instance. They are universally disliked by actual conservatives, however.

      So please, don't confuse "Republicans" with "conservatives". They are two very distinct groups of people, with two very different attitues toward basic issues such as freedom of expression, individual liberty, and so forth. Every real conservative is completely mortified by the recent goings-on within the US, and their involvement in wars around the world.

      • by WhiplashII (542766) on Monday May 22, 2006 @11:02AM (#15380478) Homepage Journal
        Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers.

        And yet our founding father executed several people as spies - for publishing military information to our enemies. The situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be. (For example, by having Wired publish this we are having the least informed person make the disclosure decision. Remember, these programs have bi-partisan Congressional oversight - but only by the security committee. The Congressmen that are posturing are just using the fact that they are not on the committe for political gain. Don't be naive, look for the motivations of your representative.)

        It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society.

        Ah - no bias here! Honestly, the same could be said about any political party. Half of the people have an IQ less than 100. Very few have a high IQ (above 140 or so). Dumb people out vote you, get over it. (As a collorary to what I said above, your representative is primarily conserned with convincing those that do not check facts, but watch the news. Always check the facts! [BTW, as a republican you should be reading this site for an opposing viewpoint. I'm not sure what you should do as a Democrat - is the Drudge Report any good?])

        And I find it laughable that someone (the grandparent) is worried about getting modded down by conservatives. Conservatives? Slashdot?

        Watch, this comment will be modded down by liberals - virtually guaranteed!
        • by meringuoid (568297) on Monday May 22, 2006 @11:35AM (#15380819)
          And I find it laughable that someone (the grandparent) is worried about getting modded down by conservatives. Conservatives? Slashdot?

          You're kidding, right? Slashdot is pretty far right. Look at the discussion any time the question of trade unionism [slashdot.org] comes up. One can hardly call this a left-wing consensus. The number of Thatcherites and Ayn Rand fetishists here is amazing. You'd struggle to find someone on /. seriously favouring the nationalisation of all industry, mass organised labour and a really high (like say 90%) top rate of income tax. THAT would be left-wing.

          If there's a political consensus on /., it's a very individualist one. We're hackers, solitary creatures uncomfortable with being interfered with by either governments or corporations. It's right-wing, but also anarchistic, what you might call libertarian.

    • by Entropy (6967) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:59AM (#15380433)
      Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.

      I disagree, strongly.

      To my mind, an American patriot is loyal to the ideals of freedom - freedom for all - as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. And surely the highest mark of a true patriot is to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

      There is nothing "unconditional" in true independent thinking.

      I consider myself a patriot. And I surely do love the ideals this country was (ostensibly ..) founded to ensure the reality of.

      But what the country is today is FAR from ideal, and I am not refering to the government only. In fact - one could make a solid case (As V did in V for V) that this society has the government it deserves. And what does that say about us?

      As for Wired news posting this info, I am sure others have thought this, and maybe some have said it, but it's worth saying again: DOWNLOAD AND ARCHIVE the Wired info! This way it can't be "disappeared" in a "server accident" ..
    • by enrico_suave (179651) on Monday May 22, 2006 @11:42AM (#15380899) Homepage
      Is now a good time to point out that Wired News and Wired the deadtree magazine are really separate entities? I'm not sure how much Wired News will notice your support by magazine subscription *shrug*

  • by the_unknown_soldier (675161) on Monday May 22, 2006 @09:56AM (#15379897)
    Wired states in the article that this isn't illegal. The gag order is only on the EFF and AT&T. So Wired are fine in posting it. Also, since the document isn't the exact document under seal but an older version, it may not constitute the final evidence given by Klein. Wired is not doing anything legally brave here: they have made sure to cover their asses.

    The article fails to mention what the consequences for the EFF are though... (assuming the EFF leaked it to Wired.)
  • by ActionAL (260721) on Monday May 22, 2006 @09:56AM (#15379904)
    Information wants to be free, and you let it! thanks!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2006 @09:57AM (#15379913)
    I surely hope so! grmpfb.. enemy of mankind!
  • by paladinwannabe2 (889776) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:03AM (#15379959)
    Having looked through the documents that Wired provided, I didn't see anything that should qualify as a trade secret of AT&T. The documents do list a bunch of equipment that is located in AT&T's server rooms, including the splitter that lets 'Authorized persons' monitor the data flowing through the fiber optics cable- but it doesn't say how the equipment is connected to each other or what software programs the machines are running. This data is not enough for anyone to duplicate AT&T's network, not even in a small part. The only damage AT&T can expect to receive from the publication of these documents is even more of their customers convinced that they have been letting the NSA take all their information.
  • Well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dwbh (976392) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:03AM (#15379967)
    I fully expect Daily Kos [dailykos.com] to be brimming over with phone switching and network engineering experts in a few hours.
  • Good job, Wired. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:04AM (#15379969) Homepage Journal
    I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.

    If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open, they shouldn't have let that information out. There is no such thing as blackmail, in my mind, and there is no fair trial if you're guilty and the information is out there that proves it.

    The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.

    Of course nothing will happen. Some fines? Some words about terrorism? Do people not see that the worst terrorists are those with the worst weapons?
    • Re:Good job, Wired. (Score:4, Informative)

      by john82 (68332) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:48AM (#15380327)
      I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial
      The ACLU would disagree with you

      If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open
      Not all information is relevant to the commission of an alleged crime. Oops, sorry. In this case what you were doing was legal but you won't be able to do it anymore since the folks who actually were committing a crime have changed their tactics.

      Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous
      RTFM. Go back and read the Constitution again. Look at Article III, Section 3 [cornell.edu].
      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

      If someone had a program in place to identify and prosecute those who would injure American citizens, and someone else decided to render that program unusable, whom do you think would be more likely guilty of treason?
    • Re:Good job, Wired. (Score:5, Informative)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:55AM (#15380410)

      I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.

      I disagree. You can say whatever you want, but be prepared to face the consequences. Many of the laws restricting speech serve a very necessary purpose. Here are some examples:

      • Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. (The classic example.)
      • Slandering a political opponent, loudly via the media outlets you own, and only hours before voting starts.
      • Publishing libelous remarks a political opponent, loudly via the media outlets you own, and only hours before voting starts.
      • False advertising
      • Medical personnel lying about dangers, options.
      • Blackmailing someone for something they have or have not done.

      There are plenty of other legitimate reasons to limit free speech. I'm less convinced of the need for "trade secrets" and certainly it does not trump revealing political corruption and illegal actions by government officials (the most highly protected form of free speech). In this instance there is little to no justification and the executive branch has absolutely no authority to suppress this speech because of national security concerns.

      The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.

      I'd argue that what they are doing is illegal and unethical, but not necessarily immoral. But it is the letter of the law that needs to be upheld to insure that we continue to be a nation of law. I would also consider these people to be oathbreakers, violating their oaths to uphold the constitution, but then, so is pretty much every member of congress and every person in the armed forces. The constitution and bill of rights is just a speaking point these days, and is in no way enforced. The federal government is just what the founding fathers tried to prevent. The issue is what to do about it. In this day and age of mass media can an opponent win on the reform platform? I thinks so, but without a lot of money behind them and certainly not from within either mainstream political party.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:05AM (#15379980)
    Even having grown up in communist Poland during the 1960s and 1970s, I cannot say that I've seen such a blatant attack on freedom and liberty.

  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:09AM (#15380016)
    Certainly NOT!

    Any company given over 'private' data (whether it is mine or another citizen's) should be held accountable if they are breaking the law.

    Or do we really want to live in a paranoid society run by a paternalistic Government?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:16AM (#15380073)
    There is nothing propriatry or sensitive in the docs. All they are of a list of fibers that should have an optical splitter inserted. and where the new end should go. Working for a large telco, I have piles and piles of documents like these.

    The Docs do not outine what traffic is on those circuits, where they go, or even where the tap goes.

    The only thing they show is that there network was changed so that what ever is moving over the fibers is duplicated and sent somewhere else.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:24AM (#15380132)
    You can get the files off bittorrent here: http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3487747 [thepiratebay.org]
  • by pla (258480) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:27AM (#15380148) Journal
    ...OSHA will!

    Check out the photos of the "secret doors". Now, I understand that networking can get a bit messy, but that doesn't justify keeping a needlessly unsafe work area. That place looks like a nightmare! And not even remotely handicap-accessible.

    For shame, AT&T... Blatantly violating the US constitution we can overlook, but a dangerously messy work environment? Tsk tsk tsk.



    Ah well... on the bright side, if they nailed Al Capone for tax evasion, perhaps we plebes will eventually see some form of justice done in this case.
  • Wired! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:30AM (#15380167) Homepage Journal
    This is the most respect I've had for Wired since they ditched their 1990s rule of using twelve different fonts in fourteen different colors on every page.

    But seriously, I wonder how long this will stay online. I'd encourage those interested to save a copy, and mirror the crap out of it.

  • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:32AM (#15380179) Journal
    Okay, so Wired has joined the group of people that have published the informants statements, and judges, being the considered thinkers they are, would not have barred only the EFF if the judge did not want the statements published. One point for the judge on that one. Neither did the judge declare the documents be returned or the informant 'gagged', two more points for the judge. At this point, it looks like a rout on the field of play, AT&T is in trouble. All the disinformation that they have been spreading is shaping up to be the proverbial excrement headed for the oscillating rotary device.

    Everyone in the world but AT&T and NSA can see the train wreck coming. Time for some timely resignations about now, and please please please can we all drop the bottom out of AT&T stock just now too!

    Where is Judge Judy when you need her? I can't wait to see what unimaginable harm this will do to those wanting to take away more and more of my 'rights' as a citizen of the Empire of the Dollar.

    No, I'm not posting AC, the American system of laws and justice do have a good balance most of the time, and eventually, if you play with fire long enough, you get burned. I am given the right to discuss, even rant about how my government is serving me. As of today, I still have all of the rights. I would like to see those spying, criminals get the justice they actually deserve.... treason against the people of US.

    The right to bear arms is to ensure that the government remains humble, among other things. Despite that fact that this would be a lopsided event, the framers of the constitution did not try to make it impossible for future citizens to remove the government from power. NOW, I'm not saying that we should, for the most part, I like the way the US government works. What I'm unhappy with is that there are entrenched in that government, people who would abuse the power granted to them for their own gain. People who would misuse those power to abuse the rights of citizens for their own gain.

    We, the people.... demand to know who those people are, and what they are doing. When the government acts in the dark, hides from the light of oversight, it is time for change... Its a mid-term election year, and 2008 promises to be a special kind of election. So lets all dust off our thinking caps and start taking notes:

    Who is making mistakes now?
    Who is supporting DRM/*AA/stupid Internet laws?

    And so on... then lets all vote accordingly when the time comes, even if it politically seems wrong. A good mix of all three parties, and a few token representatives from the fringe parties is "GOOD FOR AMERICANS" (TM) and thus good for America, America's allies, and the world in general in as much as it affects the world in general.

    And, if you're not a US citizen, don't be afraid to share your notes. I'm sure you get different news than we a 'given' here in the US. Lets make it a wiki if we have to ....

    What do you think? Am I off my rocker here?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:33AM (#15380192)
    Bush opponents and privacy advocates have been screaming about how illegal it is (4th amendment violation), and crying over the invasion of privacy. The problem is, it's not illegal. the Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of such issues.

    The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the numbers they dial:

    [W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

    [E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.


    But there is no need to stop at just phone numbers. There is a ton of information collected on you by others that the government can legally obtain and use under this ruling. Consumer data has become so valuable that companies known as data aggregators buy entire data banks from credit card companies, hotel chains, phone companies, etc., mix them with publicly available data from phone books or title companies and then sell access to their mega-database to marketing analysts seeking a comprehensive view of the American consumer.

    Anyone with enough cash can find out what someone's mortgage payments are, what restaurants he frequents, what debts he owes and where he banks, whether he subscribes to American Rifleman or Martha Stewart Living, and whether he's more likely to visit Graceland or Greenland, among a thousand other features of his life. Acxiom, for example, the US's largest data aggregator, has 20 billion customer records covering 96 percent of U.S. households. That's a ton of data about you, me, everyone.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the government may obtain business and other records held by third parties without warrant or probable cause, because those records are no longer private . Law enforcement officials may subpoena records, or request that they be provided voluntarily, or may simply purchase data repositories on the market like any other player in the digital economy.

    Got that? The NSA could buy records from Acxiom (and all the other aggregators) and mine the shiznit out of it for whatever they want and it's all perfectly legal. From these third parties, they could know an astonishing amount about any one of us. I mean a breathtaking amount. Add in programs like Carnivore and Echelon (and probably and hundred other still classified ones) and you can be sure if the government wants to know everything there is to know about you, they know it. And they got it all legally.

    If you don't like that, I can understand - I'm not sure I do either and it would be healthy to have a debate over that topic. However, constantly insisting that laws were broken only shows that you've never put any thought or research into the position you've taken and exposes you for a fool that is probably best ignored.
    • Just because the laws are not updated to protect us, doesnt mean it isnt wrong and isnt against the 4th Ammendmant, someone just needs to get out there and make sure the 4th Ammednmant is doing its job in a world were technology has let the government get around its original intent. Because we can see as Americans the original intent of the 4th Ammendmant was to stop what essentially are unreasonable searches, or fishing for criminal activities among people who are not suspect of a crime. Which is what is
    • by Stalyn (662) on Monday May 22, 2006 @12:02PM (#15381130) Homepage Journal
      However, constantly insisting that laws were broken only shows that you've never put any thought or research into the position you've taken and exposes you for a fool that is probably best ignored.

      I think that's a little unfair to say that. There is widespread opinion in the legal community that what the NSA is doing is illegal. For example Kate Martin [acsblog.org] of the Center of National Security Studies [cnss.org]. Also don't forget Qwest turned down the government's request because their own internal lawyers thought it was illegal.

      We won't know the "offical" legality of the program until SCOTUS makes some sort of decision on it. If that ever happens....
    • "Got that? The NSA could buy records from Acxiom (and all the other aggregators) and mine the shiznit out of it for whatever they want and it's all perfectly legal."

      No, they couldn't. The government could buy the records in the course of an investigation, but data mining, even if the data is legally obtained, still violates the 4th amendment. In theory, at least, though in practice the 4th has been shat upon.

      Smith vs. Maryland doesn't apply here since Smith was a suspect in the robbery in question --
  • by scottiev (828573) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:37AM (#15380219)
    Does anyone else suspect that AT&T may be receiving special treatment for getting in bed with the fed? The anti-molopy police seem to have been looking the other way as AT&T snatched up BellSouth (the rest of Cingular with it) and SBC.
  • by Grizzletooth (245582) * on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:45AM (#15380297) Homepage
    Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.

    While I agree that CALEA is an overly broad statute, it does require network operators to be able to provide the capability for court-ordered lawful intercepts. The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could. But from that viewpoint, so could any phone company that controls the local loop for Internet or telephone calls.

    Klein makes an incorrect intuitive leap when he says that since AT&T Narus system is spliced into their links to Verio, Genuity, UUNet, etc. that means they can read the entire internet. This is wrong, they can only read traffic that has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA. The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).

    On the issue of NSA being involved in this, it is possible that this system wasn't implemented for CALEA, but instead to allow NSA to wiretap conversations that had been discovered to be heading out of the country, and then requested to be intercepted. For instance, if they had an IP address of some mail server in Iraq, they could tell (legally without a warrant) AT&T to give them logs and conversations from any AT&T customer, over any AT&T network link, specifically to that foreign IP address. Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.

    Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees. Which would be a logical part of the protection of a CALEA lawful intercept operation from being tampered with by foreign agents, or non-authorized parties.
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday May 22, 2006 @11:26AM (#15380724)

      Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.

      I suspect it was regulatory compliance and security budget that funded this installation, but it is a little "above and beyond."

      The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could.

      I agree, but this does look very suspicious and it is certainly worth investigating. We were commanded to be "eternally vigilant" against our own government. This should be investigated and NSA files and procedures reviewed to determine just what is occurring. I see no national security reason to keep this secret (aside from, possibly, the contents of some actual intercepted communications).

      This is wrong, they can only read traffic that[sic] has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA.

      I take it you've never heard of transit traffic?

      The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).

      Yup, at any given time, although I doubt AT&T has their connection constantly maxed out, so we don't know the real traffic rate percentage this can monitor. We also have no idea what the capacity of the storage they are using for forensic analysis of this data is, nor how long they are keeping it. Hopefully the average load, the regexps matched (at least in general), and the procedures in place will shed some light on this.

      Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.

      The courts have not yet ruled on this (and I suspect they will find the NSA in violation) and I think the "reasonable expectation of privacy" of the average citizen is pretty clear here.

      Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees.

      That seems more than a little far-fetched to me.

      In my mind, I don't know what they were doing, but I think the circumstantial evidence is rather strong. The problem is, I don't trust that a proper investigation will be performed, given the current and obvious corruption of our government. I would like to compliment you, however, on at least providing some of the only rational discourse in this thread.

      • I take it you've never heard of transit traffic?

        I have, but usually AT&T is not going ot have the "best path" to customers of UUNet, for example, except to an AT&T transit customer. Which qualifies as traffic that AT&T could be asked to intercept.

        BTW, I agree that this whole AT&T/Narus/NSA situation is a terrible assualt on liberty, I just want to be sure that people put the blame where it belongs. The congressmen and senators that write these bad laws, the presidents for signing them, an
    • The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could.

      So, what's all the fuss about? Why was there a gag order on this information?

      Seems that somebody thinks that this information reveals something important, and I figure they know a lot more than you...
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday May 22, 2006 @10:55AM (#15380408) Homepage Journal
    Bush's Attorney General, Gonzales, wants to figure out how to twist any possible law covering journalism and national security into prosecuting journalists for publishing leaked info [yahoo.com]. Even though WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Iraq War Sr and Jr, were all fought well without jailing leak publishers.

    Bush certainly has "a new kind of war" in the Terror War: our goverment is at war with our people.
  • by kimvette (919543) on Monday May 22, 2006 @12:19PM (#15381246) Homepage Journal
    AT&T, you voided your right to keep your proprietary information locked up as trade secrets when you chose to engage in illegal activities with the government, conspiring to undermine our inalienable constitutional rights, namely the fourth and first amendments (and possibly the fifth in some cases if the "fishing" does turn up a crime). As bad as it is for pedophiles and terrorist and crack dealers to get away with what they're doing, I'd choose dealing with having those scumbags continue doing what they're doing than to lose my inalienable constitutional rights.

    You got caught committing treason, and are now crying foul and are in essence trying to use the "trade secret" crap to get out of trouble and not lose customer confidence? Sorry, too late.
  • by gnovos (447128) <.ten.deppihc. .ta. .sovong.> on Monday May 22, 2006 @12:47PM (#15381539) Homepage Journal
    My wife walks past that building on the way to work every day. She has been calling it the "Spy Headquarters" ever since she first saw it. It just LOOKS guilty... It's almost hollywood in it's attempt to look like a secret NSA headquarters (completely "abandoned", but without the graphiti and homeless that a typical abandoned building in that area draws, and except for the mysterious lights that are only on at certian hours of the day and night only on the floors with the blinds drawn)...
  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Monday May 22, 2006 @02:10PM (#15382292)
    In the old days, you'd hire a window washer to drill a little hole in a window frame and insert a tiny microphone, with a camoflauged lead running to the building next door, where a front company would have a front room of cute typists and a back room of guys with earphones and tape recorders. And a back door to scram out thru if the KGB started pounding on the front door. Cheap, effective, and semi-deniable when found out.

    NOW the "Get Smart" guys build a "secret room" right in the bleepin Ma Bell building! And said room is of course (a) On the building plans, in duplicatre. (b) Known to everybody, as they're not allowed to go in there. (c) Uses scads of bulky and hot, and easily-identifiable off-the-rack equipment.

    Sheesh!

  • NSA-AT&T scandal (Score:4, Informative)

    by j.leidner (642936) <leidner@noSPAm.acm.org> on Monday May 22, 2006 @03:43PM (#15383063) Homepage Journal
    One of the more significant points of the story is the fact that the AT&T employee has leaked that NSA are using hardware and software from NARUS [narus.com] to analyse data traffic (the very same equipment is used by Telecom Egypt and Saudi Telecom).

    Which of course makes it possible for the creative crypto-designer to work around this particular device type, if necessary. But I would think that any reasonably encrypted channel is immune to this automatic filtering.

    Here is a good blog entry on the technical aspects of the AT&T-NSA scandal [dailykos.com].

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...