AHuxley writes: delimiter.com.au is reporting on the 61 separate departments and agencies in Australia that would like access to the metadata.
The Government’s Data Retention scheme keeps logs of network providers and telcos metadata for two years.
A Freedom of Information request has found details on agencies hoping to get a role as enforcement agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.
AHuxley writes: Vice.com is reporting more news on the surveillance equipment found around London. Sites range from the Ecuadorian embassy to protest locations. Sites that showed a "massive variance in signal strength" did not seem to be of any interest to or even detectable by equipment operators. Who is allowing the devices to be connect without comment? Follow the trade in "repeater" equipment and what can be used by private companies.
AHuxley writes: The http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net... reports on a FOIA request covering "... all e-mails sent by Edward Snowden" Remember how Snowden should have raised his concerns with his superiors within the NSA? Remember how no such communication could be found? Remember how one such communication was released but did not seem to be raising direct concerns? Well some record of e-mail communications seems to exist but they are exempt from public disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
AHuxley writes: The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Australian federal and state police are using a no warrant cell phone tower metadata access technique called a "tower dump".
A "tower dump" provides the identity, activity and location of all cell phones that connect a cellphone tower(s) over time (an hour or two). The metadata from thousands of phones and numbers connected are then sorted. Australian law-enforcement agencies made 330,000 requests for metadata in 2012-13.
Some US views on the same legal issues:
Judge Questions Tools That Grab Cellphone Data on Innocent People (Oct 22, 2012) http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/20... Will Telcos Follow ISPs and Extend Warrant Protection for All? (JUNE 17, 2014) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
"Lawsuit seeks details on Chicago Police purchases of cellular tracking gear" (June 10, 2014) http://www.suntimes.com/news/m...
"Records from more than 125 police agencies in 33 states revealed one in four used a tactic called a “tower dump,”...."
AHuxley writes: A team of eight antiwar activists broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania and removed at least 1000 documents. Once removed and sorted, the bulk of the files showed FBI spying on US political groups. Cointelpro had been found. 43 year later more details about how the anonymously packages ended up with select US reporters weeks later. Years later the full extent of COINTELPRO (COunter INTELligence PROgram) was finally understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
AHuxley writes: The US Department of Defense (DoD) has released a 150 page document covering its vision for the future role of unmanned systems.
The report mostly covers drones (unmanned aerial systems) use but offers insight into land, and sea technology too.
Pre-programmed tasks, new algorithms, more sensors, and complex machine learning will be advanced to help try and reduce projected funding needs. For example humans will not be needed for the duration of the mission until a drone swarm is released. The need to shape cultural hurdles, standards, and export regulations around the use of drones will also be worked on.
pdf at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121392 or http://publicintelligence.net/dod-unmanned-systems-2013/
AHuxley writes: The American Civil Liberties Union sought to challenge the Ul legal "border exemption" three years ago.
Can your laptop be seized and searched at the border?
A 32 page decision provides new legal insight into legal thinking around suspicion less searches, making copies, keeping copies.
"think twice about the information you carry on your laptop.."
“Is it really necessary to have so much information accessible to you on your computer?”
i.e. your electronic devices searchable and sizeable for any reason at the U.S. border.
ACLU may appeal. The decision: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/abidor_decision.pdf
Also note the Kool-Aid comment.
AHuxley writes: USCYBERCOM was a powerful new command to conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations created in 2006 and reached full operational capability by late 2010.
Could CYBERCOM be returning to its US military origin away from public spotlight of its more civilian setting in the NSA via the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)?
The NSA may have its powers returned to that of keeping US codes safe, ensuring international cryptography is useless, spying and its ongoing US domestic surveillance duties. The newer, coveted global operations role hidden before more relations by Snowden, other whistleblowers or investigative journalists induce public hearings?
Cyber Commands “offensive” operations on the Internet would then be secure form hearings, investigations or any new laws or limits.
Will part of the US mil get their offensive cyber warfare role back from an agency that gained many new roles in a very short time frame and much publicly?
Expect to see the spin of many classic sock puppets with good news stories about why the NSA needs its new powers to reach out globally and within the USA e.g. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-31/document-reveals-official-nsa-talking-points-use-911-attacks-sound-bite
Some links about the role, formation and use of Cyber Command can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command
AHuxley writes: Thomas Drake a decorated United States air force, navy veteran and whistleblower from a position as a senior executive at America's National Security Agency.
His views on the 4th amendment, the foreign intelligence surveillance act and the role of an extraordinarily broad dragnet of electronic surveillance in the US.
The interview talks about countries going along with US surveillance as they feel they will never be caught and the telco tech is in place.
AHuxley writes: With the US trying to understand the domestic role of their foreign intelligence and counterintelligence services in 2013, what can a declassified look back into the 1960's and 1970's add to the ongoing legal debate?
Welcome to the world of Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel and the work done by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Read about prominent anti-war critics and US senators been tracked and who was on the late 1960's NSA watch list.
From Rev. Martin Luther King to civil rights leader Whitney Young, boxer Muhammad Ali, Tom Wicker, the Washington bureau chief and Washington Post columnist Art Buchwald, Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.).
The NSA was aware of the legality of its work and removed all logos or classification markings, using the term 'For Background Use Only".
Even back then NSA director at the time, Lew Allen noted: “appeared to be a possible violation of constitutional guarantees,” page 86:
What did the NSA think about signals intelligence sites in your country? See if your country makes the "indefinite" list on page 392: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB441/docs/doc%201%202008-021%20Burr%20Release%20Document%201%20-%20Part%20A2.pdf
AHuxley writes: Slashdot readers have seen and commented on the news surrounding internet encryption and who can get access.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the Australian Signals Directorate (was Defence Signals Directorate, DSD) and New Zealand's GCSB are expected to invited into the same initiative.
AHuxley writes: Australia’s Foreign Minister Bob Carr seems to be fine with US international data collection (spying) with the help of US consumer hardware, telcos and software vendors by the NSA (National Security Agency). It would seem the protections offered to all US citizens under the US "Bill of Rights and its Supreme Court, on where individuals stand in relationship to Government" will some how be offered to or balance out Australian law on privacy and data protection. Will a "lively political system" in the USA look after the privacy of Australians? Network Ten’s Meet the Press program has the text of the interview here http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/06/09/1226660/835253-meet-the-press-transcript.pdf
AHuxley writes: Could using social media or blog comments about any military operation make you a legal military target? Australian army Land Warfare Studies Centre analyst Chloe Diggins looks at what could make a web 2.0 user a combatant. The Geneva Convention protecting civilians could be removed if a power feels uploading, downloading or sharing is part of the fight. How long before "knowingly providing material support or resources to an entity that has been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act." becomes just "providing material support or resources to an entity that has been designated"