AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs 157
UltimaGuy writes to mention a Wired article about some AT&T documents that have gone off the farm. An ex-employee provided some information to the EFF, to assist in their wiretapping case against the company. Ma Bell is now arguing the files are confidential, and shouldn't be used in a court case. From the article: "The documents, which the EFF filed under a temporary seal last Wednesday, purportedly detail how AT&T diverts internet traffic to the National Security Agency via a secret room in San Francisco and allege that such rooms exist in other AT&T switching centers."
no fourth amendment protections here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just cause AT&T doesn't want them out there doesn't mean squat.
Re:no fourth amendment protections here. (Score:1)
The irony of this statement these days is too thick to comprehend at 9:30 in the morning.
Re:no fourth amendment protections here. (Score:3, Funny)
Not quite... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only shady part is whether or not the Patriot Act or other rights-inhibiting measures can cover AT&T's ass, or the asses of the agencies involved. If the Patriot Act had not been passed, believe me, AT&T would be in a world of shit.
Re:Not quite... (Score:2)
There, fixed that for ya.
(at least in the world I want to live in =-) )
Re:Not quite... (Score:2)
Solution: Philip Zimmermann's Zfone (Score:5, Informative)
Recently, he has worked to give the world a very simple program that will encrypt voice communications for any SIP VoIP. It's called Zfone [philzimmermann.com] and this news about AT&T working with the NSA covertly is all the more reason you should use it.
I believe Slashdot covered [slashdot.org] Zfone's release a month ago.
As an American, I value my anonymity and ability to communicate without concern of eaves dropping very highly. I hope to see some VoIP services possibly use Zfone or some level of encryption as a default out of the box feature in the future. If you're concerned for your privacy, read up on Zfone and find out how easy it is to use!
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Legal Action (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wonder how long it will be before Mark Klein is repaid for his heroic and patriotic act with legal action from AT&T, a la Stephen Heller / Diebold.
Re:Legal Action (Score:2)
what i want to know is how long is it going to be before we start boycotting at&t? c'mon! i already changed my webmail provider to one that didn't traceroute over obviously at&t-owned lines. it's fun and easy!
Hold (Score:5, Funny)
The EFF declined to comment on the filing, while AT&T did not return a call seeking comment.
The call was placed in a queue while all available agents were attending to other customers.
Re:Hold (Score:5, Funny)
The call was placed in a queue while all available agents were attending to other customers.
This is known as the "far queue".
Re:Hold (Score:2)
What, as in "far queue and b00bies?" =)
Re:Hold (Score:2)
Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
-Eric
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
First, this does help fight terrorism iff ALL traffic goes through it, and the terrorist uses it.
Now, with that said, what makes you think that this limited to ATT? Because people on /. have not seen it? because EFF has not found all the evidence?
Next what is making people think that Al Qaeda, who received CIA training (thanks to reagan) to survive, does not know that they will be monitored and is actively not on the wire?
The problem is that this system is targeted at terrorism, but with the patriot act, it allows all this power to actively be used against americans. Worse, we have now seen that the white house consists of cowards, liars, and traitors. There is no doubt that they are using this system for their personal use. If nothing else, do you remember the East Coast Democrat mayor who was being tracked? There is a LOT of circumstanstial evidence of the feds using all this against Americans. By itself, no big deal. By taken as a whole, and it should be apparent that we are not the land of the free, but we are recruiting the USSR but with capitalism thrown in.
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
No, because he's well hidden by the terrabytes of crap. Better to use less crude forms of intelligence to specifically target people like him in the first place, rather than just throwing a wide net over EVERYONE and praying that we notice the terrorist in the crowd.
Two fisherman:
One fisherman says "I'm going to fish for salmon. I'm going up to Alaska during this year's salmon run. And I'm using a salmon tra
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
They don't just drag the oceans with giant nets hoping they'll get something.
-Eric
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
-Eric
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
The second one. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but what if the second fisherman really wanted to catch an endangered species of whale that is illegal to hunt? If you claim to be looking for salmon, but do so in a grossly inefficient manner, it may be the only way possible to use your resources to catch the endangered whales. Sure, you get 10,000,000 tons of unwanted fish per whale you want, but if it's the only way yo
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
[hopping on a boat with a suitcase full of cash and a dirty bomb]
SO LONG, SUCKERS!!
-Eric
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
-Eric
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
History teaches us that this should not be a surprise [wikipedia.org]. Give the federal government excessive police powers ("But we need to hunt *communists*!") and they *will* abuse it.
Hitler was ahead of his time. We already tried claiming that we needed expanded police powers to hunt "communists". Now we're claiming that we need them to hunt "terrorists". Hitler just took the Reichstag fire and demanded more powers because he needed to hunt "communist terrorists".
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't. An elite BellSouth tech with 30+ years experience told me about a similar secret monitoring room in downtown Atlanta he had worked on in the mid-to-late '90s. He implied that it was FBI-run, but that there was no effective company monitoring of the extent of the tapping.
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:3, Informative)
The NSA taps are not being taken from these rooms. They are taken elsewhere.
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
Assuming that it is true that more general tax funds in the US go for roads (building?, maintenance?, etc.) than is gathered in direct and indirect taxes on fuel... Using this logic, general tax funds spent for sidewalks and hiking trails would also be a subsidy to farmers who grow food that people eat to provide enough energy for them to walk. And to think that not only is there no "Federal Food Tax" but food is actually exempt from sale tax in a
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
Their culture is such that they are taught to hate non-believers from ground up.
They behave differently, are uncomfortable dealing with outsiders (even within their own religion), and believe violence is the only answer to all of their problems.
The issue is not violence, it is violence against non-believers: indiscriminate violence against them... that mark these guys different from IRA or other groups.
If it were not for their oil, their grounds wo
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
Your doctor told you that, I take?
You're right, though. Truly, Islam is the religion of peace [cnn.com], tolerance [cnn.com], and respect for women [google.com].
Truth or Scare? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, it would have been clear to a child that Osama and friends were going to take over commerical jets for nefarious deeds long before 9-11 if they'd
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's not the problem. The problem is that they're spying on their own people as a matter of course, eavesdropping on our communications, reading our mail.
Whether or not it helps fight terrorism is irrelevant. Even if it could prevent another September 11th, it would still be unacceptable.
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
This reminds me of an argument I had with someone a couple months ago regarding the importance of privacy vs. the importance of preventing terrorism. I argued that if we give up our privacy, sure, MAYBE they could gather enough intelligence and interpret it correctly to avoid another 9/11 - scale attack. (That's a BIG maybe. Personally I don't trust a government agency to tell me the sky is blue.) However, this doesn't protect American citizens.
That might not make sense until you take the position that once we give up those rights (which were so important to the Founding Fathers that they put them in the first few amendments to the constitution; I'm thinking first and fourth are most relevant) we are no longer American citizens. We're people who happen to live in the same country.
It's not worth giving up our national identity or constitutional rights/ideals for an indeterminate amount of increased security. The person I was arguing with said that if it saves just one life it's worth it; I said one life is not worth the subjugation of 300 million. It's not even close.
So then he trotted out the old "if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about" chestnut. I'm sorry, I don't want the US government to know who I talk to, who I associate with, what religon I observe, what newspapers I read, and what factors I consider when deciding when to take legal action. (Bonus points if you recognize what those five things have in common.) It's just not any of their business! Plus, it starts to have a chilling effect on what topics are "acceptable" to discuss and which ones make you an "enemy of the state". The temptation to abuse that information is just too great, and I don't trust an elected official to make that decision objectively. What one person considers treason (clearly illegal) another considers civil disobedience (legal so long as no other illegal acts are committed, protected by the Constitution.)
I'll take your bonus points, please (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
I often wonder about the mentality of people who say things like this. Do they simply think that they will be somehow immune from the effects of an all knowing government? Do they just not care? Do they even understand?
Perhaps it's simply gross naivity. The government is "good", ergo, to oppose the government is "bad". You're not "bad" are you?
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
So then he trotted out the old "if you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about" chestnut.
The big problem with that argument is that what constitutes 'wrong' is subject to cange without notice and that sometimes, a corrupt government or official in that government might decide that insisting on your rights or that your vote be counted is 'wrong'. In the past, the FBI decided that demanding an end to racism was 'wrong'. Nixon decided that being a Democrat was 'wrong'. McCarthy decided
Re:Well said (Score:2)
1) I think it's safe to assume this bugging, and secret office existed before 2001.
2) just because the terorrist attack allowed our government to try and legitimize everything that they were doing before, it actually allows us to note this and fight the long battle to undo it.
>The proper reaction would have been to immediately hunt down and destroy everyone who participated in the 9/11 attack
killing is ju
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, so let me get this straight. Some Saudi author found some bestiality porn on the intarweb and determined that because a woman was having sex with a dog/donkey, she must have already been married to the dog/donkey because that's the only way to have sex. Dammit! He's got us. With that kind of trailblazing fact-finding, there's just no way to hide the fact that all western women are married to dogs or donkeys!
If you really want to pop his cork, send him some two on one bestiality porn. Ask if she's married to both critters.
The Islamic world has basically zero chance of economic significance (outside of the sale of resources like oil) because they forbid loans with interest, because they marginalize half of their population out of the economy, and ultimately: because quranic law is essentially anti-commerce.
Sure, they'll have a substantial population for as long as the resources last (and food aid after that), and there will be some casualties here and there, when some of those upset with the imbalance (of their own making) head off to kill some infidels. However, to be completely realistic, India and China are much larger long-term threats to US hegemony than the whole of the Muslim world.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Doesn't help fight terrorism (Score:2)
The basic idea is that so few people are actually terrorists that any dragnet search will necessarily return more false positives than real leads.
And, just to make their job harder: Gonzales nuclear assasinate device
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
In papers filed late Monday, AT&T argued that confidential technical documents provided by an ex-AT&T technician to the Electronic Frontier Foundation shouldn't be used as evidence in the case and should be returned.
Big whoop. Copy the documents and hand them back to AT&T. What's the problem? Now that the genie is out of the secret room, so to speak, how does AT&T think this is going to help? They've just received a pretty severe black eye, though most of the public really doesn't know the details, despite the publicity. If I were AT&T, I'd maintain a low profile -- raising a fuss only makes more people get interested in what's in the documents.
Your world,delivered (to the NSA) (Score:2)
Re:Your world,delivered (to the NSA) (Score:2)
Announcer: "privacy invasion, illegal spying, doing our part to bring the police state to America"
Cliff Robertson: "... and who's going to bring it to you? AT&T."
Land of the Free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:1)
error: it's "Land of the Fee" (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:error: it's "Land of the Fee" (Score:2)
That wasn't malicious. That extra 'R' was just a longstanding typo that they got around to correcting.
A bit like the way they've left the extra 'L' out of the slogan on the money.
Re:error: it's "Land of the Fee" (Score:2)
Re:error: it's "Land of the Fee" (Score:2)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:2)
(I mean inside the US)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:2)
And here there still not in "The land of the Free" but atleast they can smoke a joint without getting thrown in jail.
The joy of democracy... (Score:1)
-Rick
Re:The joy of democracy... (Score:2)
Two candidates (well, two that stand any chance of getting elected because the Libertarians are too fragmented)
(presidential debate on television)
Jack Johnson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates!
John Jackson: I respect my opponent, I think he's a good man, but quite frankly I agree with everything he just said!
(at planet express)
Fry: These are the canidates? They sound like clones. Wait a min
Re:Land of the Free (Score:2)
*Some restrictions apply...
Re:Land of the Free (Score:2)
I disagree, I think the tail end of the 90's where slightly more free.
-Rick
This proves it, of course. (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, AT&T has just admitted that they are spying on you.
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2)
But all that means is that they'll stay sealed and part of the court case...they won't go public, but they won't be ignored.
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but that's bullshit.
Defending your privacy has nothing to do with admitting guilt. Do you think there could possibly be trade secrets in those documents somehow unrelated to the charges against AT&T?
A good example here might be a court trying to admit as evidence your complete credit card purchase history in an attempt to prove acts of terrorism. Even if there was *nothing* in there linking you to terrorism, you might seriously object to the disclosure of it, would you not? And I just love double standard concept of law... Should have two versions of the law, one where corporations are Guilty until proven innocent?
I'd love to see them nailed against the wall as much as the next guy, but let's not become hypocrits in the process, ok? AT&T has the right to contest public disclosure of internal documents as much as you do.
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2)
The fact that they are claiming that the documents are private means they're correct.
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
YES! People have rights - they're people. Corporations have no entitlement to the same rights.
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2)
So, does that mean I can get the local DA go to your place of business/employer and impound all computers, papers, products, etc... without charge and without having to ever give the items back in a reasonable time? I'm sorry, but BS like this breaks down when you actually consider the consequences of what this would mean.
For businesses:
No freedom of speech so no advertising, no talking about the product and
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2)
What is required for something to be considered a "Trade Secret" is th
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2)
No, because a corporation would have no way of owning property in the first place. If we allow them to hold property, we define some sensible terms under which they do so.
No freedom of speech so no advertising,
Sounds good to me. Of course there are instances in which it makes sense to permit a
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2)
No freedom of speech so no advertising, no talking about the product and they can't say anything at all.
Uh, no. "Freedom of speech" means "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...". Guess what -- businesses already have their speech "abridged". Little restrictions against things like false advertising, the phrase "FDA has not approved these statements", etc. And guess what - it's not because Congress passed a law saying companies couldn't
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2)
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this nation's courts disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation [wikipedia.org]
Corporations are accorded all the rights and freedoms of an actual person. When that doctrine was established was the beginning of the rise of corporate dominance, the end of corporate accountability and the point at which we lost all ability to control what corporations did to our countries, our environment, our govern
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:2)
Just like those people who were stuck in the snow in southern Oregon for a couple of weeks, where a couiple of them had outstanding warrants for their arrest in Arizona for methamphetamine production/distribution...
public disclosure? (Score:2)
"In papers filed late Monday, AT&T argued that confidential technical documents provided by an ex-AT&T technician to the Electronic Frontier Foundation shouldn't be used as evidence in the case and should be returned.
The documents, which the EFF filed under a temporary seal last Wednesday, purportedly detail how AT&T diverts internet traffic to the National Security Agency via a secret room in San Francisco and allege that such rooms e
Re:This proves it, of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not double standard, but a higher standard. We must hold those that we put into a position of power to a higher standard. I believe those who write and enforce the law(or have undue influence) should pay a much higher price if they break it. Then they might be more careful about the laws they write. We must remind them that their jobs exist to serve us.
Time for the Telco Mind Trick. (Score:4, Funny)
Echelon (Score:5, Insightful)
More info, for those who has never heard of it before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [wikipedia.org]
Re:Re Your sig (Score:2)
But I'm glad someone paid attention at any rate. =)
a quote for you to remember (Score:1)
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
Confidentiality (Score:5, Funny)
I feel for AT&T, I really do. I mean, how would I feel if someone decided to use all those confidential dead hookers in my personal, private basement as some sort of "evidence" in some "trial?" I'd be shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
If only at&t had TPM chips in their computers. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If only at&t had TPM chips in their compute (Score:2)
whistleblower or not? (Score:1)
Discuss amongst yourselves...
DARPA Ties (Score:1)
Re:DARPA Ties (Score:1)
Let's try that again...
From TFA:
Klein's duties included connecting new fiber-optic circuits to that room, which housed data-mining equipment built by a company called Narus, according to his statement.
Ok, so from Narus' site, the profile of a member of the Board of Directors:
William P. Crowell
William P. Crowell is an independent security consultant and holds several board positions with a variety of technology and technology-based security companies. Since 9/11 he has s
Re:DARPA Ties (Score:1)
National security to the rescue (Score:2, Insightful)
If the government decides that this case threatens national security this case will never make it to the deposition stage...much less a trial hearing. AT&T merely has to seek intervention from the government on thei
Re:National security to the rescue (Score:2, Informative)
Wait a second... (Score:2)
They don't think that people in that city would storm the offices where this is going on (well, supposedly going on)?
That's exactly what would happen. Wouldn't even matter if the story were true or not.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2, Funny)
The best that can be hoped for is that people will flip-off the AT&T build
My Internet Traffic Was Confidential (Score:1)
Irresistible fallacious cheap shot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the surveillence operation itself is harming national security. I am America, you are America. The government isn't supposed to be America, "We, the people" are supposed to be America.
Spy on me, you make me insecure. MY security from the government itself is national security.
I'd rather have Bin Laden kill half of Congress than give up my 4th amendment rights. Without our (now nearly worthless) Constitution, thi
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:2)
Still, even if we do see AT&T held accountable, they will merely be a
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to argue something with AT&T? I wanted to keep the old-school rotary phones my grandmother rented from AT&T for 20 years at $3/month. The bastards made me mail them back.
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:1)
What trade secrets? Like how to illegally divert traffic to the NSA?
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:2)
I know you meant that sarcastically, but stop and think about the deeper issue in what you've said...
We need to ask ourselves, "WHY has AT&T provided traffic to the NSA?"
Companies do things for only two reasons - Profit, and to (grudgingly) comply with the law. So, AT&T either has established some form of commercial deal where the NSA pays them for data; or part of our new body of unknowable laws says that all sufficiently-l
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:2)
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:2)
These figments of an overheated neocon imagination?
ahref=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_q d r=all&q=beheading+video&btnG=Searchrel=url2html-29 874 [slashdot.org]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=a ll&q=beheading+video&btnG=Search>
Right right, we made that all up.
Carry on, then!
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:2, Insightful)
One other thing (Score:1, Insightful)
What kind of idiot do you have to be to believe that terrorists don't realise they're being watched? I realise the "Take my rights away, please! They scare me!" crowd overlaps somewhat with the "Those Ay-rabs sure do enjoy having sex with camels!" crowd, but do you honestly believe al-Qaeda is stupid enough to not realise they're being surveilled?
Re:This Is Damaging to National Security and AT&am (Score:2)
"In addition, if this surveillence operation is true, then he may be harming national security be revealing it to the general public and alerting terrorists that they are being watched."
They already know that. Everyone on the face of the earth knows that already, in fact.
For those with short memories... (Score:2)
Heck, some of SlashDot may not have been born at the start of events from The Hacker Crackdown [chriswaltrip.com]. For those who don't recall, BellCore claimed that the E911 document stolen and published in Phrack was worth almost $80,000... despite it later being shown that BellCore was selling documents containing all the same information with more detail for $13 to anyone who bothered to ask.
Re:For those with short memories... (Score:2)
Not that I don't agree that the E911 document ought to be public and freely available -- any standards that are the basis of or result from legislation or regulation ought to be.
Re:Privacy has always been a joke... (Score:2, Insightful)
one that could lead to calls for the impeachment of the president.
The president has asserted
1) that he can ignore clearly written laws.
2) that he has no duty to inform congress.
3) that no judicial review is possible.
4) that his authority for all this comes from an emergency - terrorism -
that