UK gathering secret intelligence via covert NSA operation

[rhett o rick]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism

Documents show GCHQ (above) has had access to the NSA's Prism programme since at least June 2010. Photograph: David Goddard/Getty Images

The UK's electronic eavesdropping and security agency, GCHQ, has been secretly gathering intelligence from the world's biggest internet companies through a covertly run operation set up by America's top spy agency, documents obtained by the Guardian reveal.

In its statement about Prism, Google said it "cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data".

In a statement confirming the existence of Prism, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence in the US, said: "Information collected under this programme is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats."

Can there be any doubt that all our personal data is being collected by someone? And the next level seems to me like big corporations can get their hands on the data. If not from the NSA, maybe from the UK or China.

This is cross posted in the Progressive Group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269

[randome]

1. You may not have a full understanding of PRISM.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/

Some have interpreted this to mean that the NSA has "direct access" in a technical sense: automatic, unfettered access to the servers' contents. But in context, "direct" is more likely to mean that the NSA is receiving data sent to them deliberately by the tech companies, as opposed to intercepting communications as they're transmitted to some other destination. That's not inconsistent with tech company lawyers scrutinizing each request before complying with it.

PRISM relates to secure FTP servers where companies transmit data they are legally obligated to provide. In other words, when served with a warrant.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

2. You have cried wolf once to often. Or maybe 10 times too often.

And your source is the Washington Post Wonk Blog.

And they say, "Some have interpreted this to mean that the NSA has "direct access" in a technical sense: automatic, unfettered access to the servers' contents. But in context, "direct" is more likely to mean that the NSA is receiving data sent to them deliberately by the tech companies, as opposed to intercepting communications as they're transmitted to some other destination."

"Some have interpreted", really? Some have interpreted? Who are those some? And why do I care what they think???

"direct is MORE LIKELY to mean." MORE LIKELY? What kind of argument includes words like most likely?

So Google is sending them our data deliberately as opposed to being intercepted directly by the NSA. Please, please think about that. What difference does it make? Besides Google disagrees with you.

I have to give you credit for standing by the conservative run NSA and Gen Clapper. You are loyal.

[randome]

3. Sending data deliberately with a legal warrant obligating them to do so.

How would you expect them to send electronic data to the NSA? By FedEx?

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In this case, since the NSA is not exactly forthcoming about everything it does, the interpretations are varied.

And how is Google disputing this?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

4. I sympathize with your desparate need to blindly defend the NSA to the end

in spite of overwhelming evidence that they are vastly exceeding our Constitutional bounds.

By the way, asking questions to frame an argument is called JAQing off.

Like this, "How would you expect them to send electronic data to the NSA? By FedEx? " and "How is Google disputing this?"
If you know the answers then tell us. By asking pointed questions you are just guessing.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off

[randome]

5. You said Google disagrees with me. I don't understand what you mean by that.

The only point Google disputes is that 'direct access' means the NSA has unfettered access to everything.

If you trust Google that much, then the most plausible explanation is that 'direct access' means a secure FTP server on which they transmit data that, as they have stated, is only provided when accompanied by a legal warrant approved by their legal team.

I agree that tapping the cables is more problematical and no doubt unethical unless that, too, is accompanied by legal warrants. Which we don't know. Which we should know.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[SidDithers]

6. +1...

Trusting Google is actually pretty hilarious. Google collects reams of data on each and every one of us and uses it however they want. To some, a multi-billion dollar information company is considered trustworthy.

Strange stuff.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

7. I dont trust Google any more than I trust the conservative troop that has control of our

intelligence agencies. Google says they are only doing as they are required by law. That doesnt mean crap to me. That is rhetoric. And you keep stating that things only happen with a legal warrant. How do you know that fact? You dont have any concept that the NSA may be doing illegal surveillance. Just because they keep saying they are following the law, doesnt make it true. In fact they have been caught violating the FISA law and the Constitution. As far as those cases where they show that they have been using warrants show that the warrants were issued with with rubber stamps. In other words the intent of getting a warrant is that they are to PROVE to a judge that it is necessary for national security. That is not being done. The conservative judges rubber stamp what the conservative NSA wants.

[randome]

8. I don't know if the NSA is following the law or not.

So what? I don't know the same about the FBI or the CIA or DHS or TSA or any other of the acronym agencies.

And many of the times the NSA was found to be in violation, it was because they brought the information to the attention of the FISA court and asked for an opinion.

They aren't perfect. Not by any means. There is not one single law enforcement agency that doesn't have compliance problems or, to some extent, outright violation of the laws.

When the NSA discovered some of their employees were spying on former lovers, they fired some, disciplined others, etc.

It's not necessarily rhetoric if Google says they are complying with legal warrants only. It could also be the truth. They have a hell of a lot to lose if someone discovered this wasn't the case. How would anyone verify that it isn't?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

9. We seem to be at an impasse if you actually believe this:

"And many of the times the NSA was found to be in violation, it was because they brought the information to the attention of the FISA court and asked for an opinion. " Your implication is that the FISA court exposed their violations. You need a link for that fantasy.

The number of times that the NSA has brought something to the attention of the FISA court, which is statistically zero, the FISA court has rubber stamped every single one without exception.

Conservatives love strong authoritarian rule. They love having intelligence agencies spying on everyone because they believe, idiotically, that the violations of our Constitution will benefit them. They are anxious to get attention off the agencies because 1. The live in a denial world of, "Dont tell me if the NSA is spying illegally." and 2. "If they are spying, it's only for our best interest."

I would hope that politically liberal DU posters would show skepticism. The agencies will push the envelope as far as they think they can get away with.

[randome]

10. Their internal audit turned up violations.

2008 internal audit: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-15/world/41431831_1_washington-post-national-security-agency-documents

2012 internal audit: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/nsa-report-on-privacy-violations-in-the-first-quarter-of-2012/395/

And here is where they asked for a ruling by the FISA court: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/nsa_may_have_gathered_tens_of_thousands_of_emails/

Surely by now you've heard that the FISA court often sends a request back to the NSA for re-work before they approve it. Any prosecutor will not bring something before a court unless they are damned sure it will get through eventually. So the 'rubber stamping' is simply part of the give-and-take process familiar to those involved with criminal investigations.

The NSA is not perfect. I don't approve of spying but I don't try to micro-manage foreign affairs all that much, either. And when Carl Bernstein said it seemed to him that the NSA has strong procedures in place to prevent abuse, that's another reason to me to not get worried that much about what the NSA might be doing somewhere, sometime.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

11. Self regulation works so well, doesnt it. It took Snowden to open the door.

And by the way, you dont know how "not perfect" the NSA is. You are only hoping.