Corroborating Snowden's claim of direct access.

[OnyxCollie]

From March, 2008.

http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/homeland-security-a-human-rights/surveillance/fisababak-pasdar

For civil liberties advocates, the first week of March 2008 wasn’t shaping up very well. For months, the House of Representatives had
been wrangling to work out a compromise bill for a pressing issue – anti-terrorist spying legislation. That political hot-button
guaranteed a tremendous amount of media coverage, as the bill represents Congress’ response to the “domestic spying” scandal
plastered on the front pages of newspapers for years – proof that the Bush administration had violated the privacy rights of American
citizens by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requirements to secure judicial warrants to target monitor
citizen’s communications.

~snip~

That’s when GAP helped our client, Babak Pasdar, educate our representatives on the full scope of what information certain telecoms
provided to the Bush administration. In a word – everything. Pasdar’s disclosures shocked Congress, and delayed the vote.

The “Quantico Circuit”

Pasdar, a experienced computer expert, was hired as a contractor to do security work for a major telecommunications company. In
doing so, he discovered a mysterious “Quantico Circuit” at the company’s facility (media sources identified the telecom as Verizon).
The circuit, linked to Quantico, VA, provided the federal government unfettered access to all of that company’s customer mobile phone
communications – all calls, emails, text messages, internet use, videos, billings, and even customer locations. However, the line was
configured so no record of what was being tapped by the government existed.

Pasdar stated that logs should be kept of what was recorded, but he was quickly moved off the project. When the telecommunications
immunity vote seemed imminent, he knew he had to expose his finding to the country before judgment was passed. How could any
immunity be reasonable, or just, if the full violations were not known? Pasdar sought help from GAP.

http://www.themediaconsortium.com/reporting/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/affidavit-bp-final.pdf

My name is Babak Pasdar, President and CEO of Bat Blue Corporation. I have given this affidavit to
Thomas Devine, who has identified himself as the legal director of the Government Accountability
Project, without any threats, inducements or coercion.

I have been a technologist in the computer and computer security industry for the past nineteen years
and am a "Certified Ethical Hacker" (E-Commerce Consultants International Council.) I have worked
with many enterprise organizations, telecommunications carriers, as well as small and medium sized
organizations in consulting, designing, implementing, troubleshooting, and managing security systems.
This statement is to make a record ofmy concerns about the privacy implications for our society from
what I personally witnessed at a major telecommunications carrier, as summarized below.

~snip~

Our plan that evening was to migrate a set of users to the new firewall, and then determine if and how it
impacted access and functionality. We started testing and, all-in-all, the small users test migration went
very well. The test went so well that we then set out to migrate over 300 sites that were carrier owned
or affiliate locations. These 300 or so sites were mostly sales offices. We migrated the locations by
redirecting their traffic to the new firewalls. All was going extremely well. As the night went on you
could feel the relief taking over the anxiousness everyone had felt earlier.

At one point I overheard C1 and C2 talking about skipping a location. Not wanting to do a shoddy job
I stopped and said "we should migrate all sites."

C1 told me this site is different.

I asked, "Who is it? Carrier owned or affiliate?"

C1 said, "This is the 'Quantico Circuit.'''

I remember that he paused and looked at me as did C2. I inquired, "Quantico, Virginia? Is this a store
location?"

C1 responded, "No."

"Is it what I think it is?", I asked.

C1 did not reply but just smiled. It was a very telling smile and I knew we were discussing something
unusual.

"What kind of circuit is it?", I asked.

"A DS-3," replied C1. (A DS-3 is a 45 mega bit per second circuit that supports data and voice
communications.)

C1 said that this circuit should not have any access control. He actually said it should not be
firewalled.

I suggested to migrate it and implement an "Any-Any" rule. ("Any-Any" is a nickname for a
completely open policy that does not enforce any restrictions.) That meant we could log any activity
making a record ofthe source, destination and type of communication. It would have also allowed
easy implementation of access controls at a future date. "Everything at the least SHOULD be logged," I
emphasized.

C1 said, "I don't think that is what they want."

"Who?", I asked, and again C1 and C2 did not respond.

C2 by this point had stepped back and his body language showed that he was very uncomfortable
discussing this matter.

"Come on guys, let's just do it and ask for forgiveness later. You know its the right thing." I suggested.

C1 and C2 did not want to comply. Instead they got on the phone with DS who asked me to stop what I
was doing and move on. To my surprise, he then drove the one hour or so to the data center.

The tentative, uncertain DS I had known was transformed into a man wagging his finger in my face and
telling me to "forget about the circuit" and "move on" with the migration, and ifI couldn't do that then
he would get someone who would.

I politely and in a low-key manner informed DS that my intention was to deliver security in line with
industry-acceptable use scenarios, and although I am not intimately familiar with their security policy,
it was reasonable to think that having a third party with completely open access to their network core
was against organizational policy.

DS did not want to hear any of it and re-doubled his emphatic message to move on. This was serious
stuff. He had let me know in no uncertain terms that I was treading above my pay grade.

When DS left, I asked C1 again, "Is this what I think it is?"

"What do you think?", he replied again, smiling.

I shifted the focus. "Forgetting about who it is, don't you think it is unusual for some third party to have
completely open access to your systems like this? You guys are even firewalling your internal offices,
and they are part of your own company!"

C1 said, "Dude, that's what they want."

I didn't bother asking who "they" were this time. "They" now had a surrogate face - DS. That told me
that "they" went all the way to the top, which was why the once uncertain DS could now be so sure and
emphatic.

[KittyWampus]

1. I posted this yesterday, thanks to your lead. Using a Washington Post article w/more info

But since this is all about being in the cool kids' clique, oh well.

It says volumes that after a month of all the bile DU'ers have been spilling over the NSA it took until your post last night to get any relevant information about HOW the NSA can tap into Telecomms and get that "direct access" Snowden claims.

And since the article from the Washinton Post is from 2008, it's old news… that no one on DU bothered to post about. Even though it's entirely relevant to the NSA issue.

Before last night the only info I found recently about 'direct access' was regarding undersea cables.

And some DU'ers post on and on about how it's about the NSA AND NOT SNOWDEN…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023205754#post10

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-04-08/news/36816391_1_telecom-firms-foreign-intelligence-investigations-fbi

[grasswire]

3. why do you continually yammer on about a popularity contest at DU?

The OP was new information to DU when Onyxcollie posted it in the middle of another thread. I asked him/her to make a new OP so more people would see it. This has nothing to do with you, or with cliques.

[KittyWampus]

4. I posted this SAME information, from an actual Washington Post article, last night.

If you and other NSA agitators really gave a shat about the subject as you claim… then why did that thread sink like a stone?

I am happy to kick this.

And it goes beyond the clique crap. It goes to those who agitate the loudest but talk about relevant information the least.

this isn't 'NEW INFORMATION' (your erroneous words). It's from 2008. if you go to my thread, you'll find more useful information.

[questionseverything]

6. new to me

so snowden was correct about the direct access

[grasswire]

11. so now those who defend the Constitution are "AGITATORS"?

I believe you owe a lot of Americans an apology.

[Sheepshank]

13. I think baggers are aggitators

don't they consider themselves defenders of the Constitution?

I'm not calling you a bagger, I'm just saying the analogy is flawed.

[JDPriestly]

15. Could you provide a link to your thread? Thanks.

[KittyWampus]

16. Here's a link to the Washington Post article from 2008. Happy to kick this thread.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-04-08/news/36816391_1_telecom-firms-foreign-intelligence-investigations-fbi

[reusrename]

22. I wouldn't post in one of your threads if my hair was on fire.

And it is!

[grasswire]

2. thank you for making this into an OP.

This ranks as one of the top revelations, to me. Just extraordinary and I thank you for bringing it to DU.

[Hydra]

5. Thanks for making this an OP

I remember you posting it in a thread that was barking about the direct access thing. Of course, this will get ignored by various people because it does fit the narrative.

[Progressive dog]

7. Holy crap, they'd be like almost as fast as fios

and about 2% the speed of most single laser fiber optics and about 15% of a USB 2.0 port. The FBI is scooping up everything with state of the art high speed connections.
I never knew that Hong Kong Eddie had worked for the FBI training facility or the marines. That must be a recent addition to his resume.

[formercia]

8. There's a lot that goes on at Quantico besides training FBI and Marines

..and that's from first-hand knowledge, so, I see no reason to discount the narrative.

The speed of the connection indicates to me that it has been in service a long time, otherwise, it would have been fiber, since the requester would have specified the highest available data-rate available when it was commissioned.

[snooper2]

10. Out of a million subscribers, on average, guess how many warrants are active?

[randome]

14. You're only going to get crickets for a direct question like yours.

Because the answer, I'm sure, won't fit in with the celebration of self-hatred.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[railsback]

26. 'Self-hatred' is thee most descriptive phrase.

[snooper2]

21. Where did your first hand knowledge go?

simple question above!

[HipChick]

17. I wondered what was slowing down my Quantum speed..

I supposed to have a T1 connection...must be those darn T taps...

[snooper2]

9. ROFL

Jesus fucking christ people are learning how LEA and warrants are complied with by communications companies and it is just blowing their fucking mind LOL

We have a MPLS VPN to our trusted third party who actually has the direct links into Quantico so we don't have to deal with their ass

What are we supposed to do, shit a circuit out when a warrant comes down the wire?

[KittyWampus]

19. Can you explain your post to someone such as myself who has no idea what MPLS VPN is etc?

I honestly want to learn.

What is an LEA

People rant with their hair on fire about the NSA reading EVERYTHING and DIRECT ACCESS.

I want to find out wtf is actually the case.

[snooper2]

20. LEA = Law Enforcement Agency

Since time began, we are required to provide law enforcement (Local, State, FBI) with access to a persons phone records and meta data. To get the content (audio) of ones phone calls is a different classification of warrant.

Here's a thread I posted on how it actually "works"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035179

To get all the data on the Internet, you basically have to duplicate the Internet. (Bandwidth wise) Which is why most of the bloggers and idiots posting about this topic don't get into any details. I'm still waiting on Snowden to release a slide that shows the NSA has multiple OC192 into hundreds of carriers in the country

(FYI, Snowden is a low level IT idiot)

[Waiting For Everyman]

12. K&R

Thank you for posting this!

[forestpath]

18. K&R

[Luminous Animal]

23. Kick.

[Catherina]

24. It was clear that the people harping about this were being deliberately disingenuous

Thank you for making this an OP

[OnyxCollie]

25. I don't know if it's being deliberately disingenuous,

but as one poster alluded to "more useful information" from the WaPo story, one can only wonder if it is to create the impression in the reader that the surveillance is legal (according to Bush-era FBI officials.)

FBI Data Transfers Via Telecoms Questioned
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-04-08/news/36816391_1_telecom-firms-foreign-intelligence-investigations-fbi

In an affidavit circulated on Capitol Hill, security consultant Babak Pasdar alleged that a telecom carrier he had worked for maintained a high-speed DS-3 digital line that co-workers referred to as "the Quantico Circuit." He said it allowed a third party "unfettered" access to the carrier's wireless network, including billing records and customer data transmitted wirelessly.

He was hired to upgrade network security for Verizon in 2003; sources other than Pasdar said the carrier in his affidavit is Verizon.

Dingell and his colleagues said House members should be given access to information to help them evaluate Pasdar's allegations.

FBI officials said a circuit of the type described by Pasdar does not exist. All telecom circuits at Quantico are one-way, from the carrier, said Anthony Di Clemente, section chief of the FBI operational technology division. He also said any transmissions of data to Quantico are strictly pursuant to court orders.

[KittyWampus]

30. Will you apologize to me? I posted it because it contains more actual info (from'08). Your post had

contained zero information about which agency runs this and how it gets shared. It contained no quotes from any congressmen or rights advocates. MINE DID.

Yours had nothing but a bunch of emotive narrative insinuating this and that. See Snooper's post above.

HERE ARE SOME MORE INFORMATIVE POSTS FROM MY LINK:


Recently, three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Chairman John D. Dingell (Mich.), sent a letter to colleagues citing privacy concerns over one of the Quantico circuits and demanding more information about it. Anxieties about whether such electronic links are too intrusive form a backdrop to the continuing congressional debate over modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs federal surveillance.

[KittyWampus]

32. Here's some more info from the 2008 article I linked to. YOU WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO ME?

Since a 1994 law required telecoms to build electronic interception capabilities into their systems, the FBI has created a network of links between the nation's largest telephone and Internet firms and about 40 FBI offices and Quantico, according to interviews and documents describing the agency's Digital Collection System. The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group in San Francisco that specializes in digital-rights issues.

The bureau says its budget for the collection system increased from $30 million in 2007 to $40 million in 2008. Information lawfully collected by the FBI from telecom firms can be shared with law enforcement and intelligence-gathering partners, including the National Security Agency and the CIA. Likewise, under guidelines approved by the attorney general or a court, some intercept data gathered by intelligence agencies can be shared with law enforcement agencies.

"When you're building something like this deeply into the telecommunications infrastructure, when it becomes so technically easy to do, the only thing that stands between legitimate use and abuse is the complete honesty of the persons and agencies using it and the ability to have independent oversight over the system's use," said Lauren Weinstein, a communications systems engineer and co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, a group that studies Web issues. "It's who watches the listeners."

[KittyWampus]

31. I made it an OP too. Before OnyxCollie. LOL! Or maybe I missed your "plonk".

says a lot so many of your clique have me on ignore.

[Laelth]

27. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[OnyxCollie]

28. Thanks for the kick. nt

[Laelth]

34. My pleasure (and a bonus kick). n/t

-Laelth

[OnyxCollie]

29. U.S. May Ease Police Spy Rules

U.S. May Ease Police Spy Rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503497_pf.html

The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.

~snip~

Under the Justice Department proposal for state and local police, published for public comment July 31, law enforcement
agencies would be allowed to target groups as well as individuals, and to launch a criminal intelligence investigation based on the
suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists. They also could share results with a
constellation of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and others in many cases.

~snip~

However, Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed rule may be misunderstood as
permitting police to collect intelligence even when no underlying crime is suspected, such as when a person gives money to a
charity that independently gives money to a group later designated a terrorist organization.

The rule also would allow criminal intelligence assessments to be shared outside designated channels whenever doing so may
avoid danger to life or property -- not only when such danger is "imminent," as is now required, German said.

Taken together, critics in Congress and elsewhere say, the moves are intended to lock in policies for Bush's successor and to
enshrine controversial post-Sept. 11 approaches that some say have fed the greatest expansion of executive authority since the
Watergate era.

[OnyxCollie]

33. Rule Changes Would Give FBI Agents Extensive New Powers

Rule Changes Would Give FBI Agents Extensive New Powers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103306_pf.html

The changes would give the FBI's more than 12,000 agents the ability at a much earlier stage to conduct physical surveillance, solicit
informants and interview friends of people they are investigating without the approval of a bureau supervisor. Such techniques are
currently available only after FBI agents have opened an investigation and developed a reasonable suspicion that a crime has
been committed or that a threat to national security is developing.

~snip~

One of the areas still under discussion, according to a senior Justice Department official, is the standard for the FBI's rare
involvement in responding to civil disorder. Under the current standards, FBI involvement requires the approval of the attorney
general and can last for only 30 days.

The new approach would relax some of those requirements and would expand the investigative techniques that agents could use
to include deploying informants. FBI agents monitoring large-scale demonstrations that they believe could turn dangerous also
would have new power to use those techniques.

Policy guidance for FBI agents and informants who work as "undisclosed participants" in organizations is still being written, the
officials said yesterday.