NSA diverted computers and laptops from shipping facilities to install spyware

[unhappycamper]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/29/nsa-diverted-computers-and-laptops-from-shipping-facilities-to-install-spyware/



NSA diverted computers and laptops from shipping facilities to install spyware
By Scott Kaufman
Sunday, December 29, 2013 14:39 EST

Der Spiegel reported on Sunday that the NSA’s “Tailored Access Operations” (TAO) has been diverting desktops and laptops shipped to U.S. consumers and installing spyware on them.

According to the report, the process, which TAO calls “interdiction,” involves intercepting packages on their way from manufacturers like Dell, Cisco, and Seagate, and installing bugs or spyware on them at a “secret workshop.”

The packages are then reintroduced into the delivery pipeline and arrive at their destination without the consumer ever realizing their machine has been compromised.

When contacted by Der Spiegel, Cisco senior vice president John Stewart said that his company is “deeply concerned with anything that may impact the integrity of our products or our customers’ networks,” and that Cisco does “not work with any government to weaken our products for exploitation.”


--

Previous thread on TAO: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11782868

[Lifelong Dem]

1. They need a warrant to open mail packages

So I don't know what this BS is about.

[Pholus]

2. Need is *such* a strong word....

And when a warrant can be granted in a blanket fashion from a secret, unaccountable court who can prove it doesn't exist?

"Sciencia est Potentia" is such an open-ended mission statement afterall...that actually doesn't say SQUAT about terra.

[Lifelong Dem]

3. This isn't about phone records from a phone company

Big difference to even mention a blanket warrant on peoples packages. How about a blanket warrant on searching everyone's homes. And I would know if my package or computer was opened. People would know, and we would be hearing all about it. Also, tell me, that they actually do not use a warrant. We're hearing from a journalist vaguely describing something for the dramatic effect.

[Pholus]

4. I would like to agree with you, but I don't think I can.

Here is the prior art:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-04-mail-inspection_x.htm

That is why secrecy is a poison. In 1999, I would have been incredulous as well. But these days, an allegation cannot be dismissed as easily as it used to be -- because in certain areas we simply are not an open society based on laws anymore.

[Lifelong Dem]

5. The thing is you don't know if they are using a warrant

Even though it is the law, the journalist conveniently left out those details.

[Pholus]

8. Bush's signing statement for H.R. 6407 says a warrant is not needed.

My emphasis is in bold...

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

The NSA says they need to do this for "foreign intelligence collection" and they can do it.

Period.

[Lifelong Dem]

10. Exigent circumstances

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances

Period

[Pholus]

11. Irrelevant. HR 6407 makes the exception explicitly. nt

[Lifelong Dem]

12. Not irrelevant

You posted this for HR 6407:

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Nice try though.

[Pholus]

15. In grade school we learned that "and" is used to separate but connect independent ideas.

c.f. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/AND -- in particular, definition number 1.

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

My try was more than sufficient for the argument.

[Lifelong Dem]

16. "And" is in addition to.

Once you pass the exigent circumstances, you could go on to the remainder of the law where the "and" is added.

[Pholus]

19. Only if you deliberately ignore the comma before it which separates the sub-phrase....

enumerating the two types of exigent circumstances which would specifically apply here.

Commas are tricky tricky things. Bush may have been a "gentleman's C" kind of writer, but his lawyers were sharper than that.

[Lifelong Dem]

22. I think they would have used the word "or" instead of "and" if it was separate.

[Pholus]

24. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Why don't you diagram the last sentence and explain how it says what you think it does without the assumption that highly-competent government lawyers misused commas and inserted an extra "and" in a list.

[Lifelong Dem]

25. Of course it makes sense

Instead of using "and", to form an addition to a statement, you would use the word "or" to eliminate the previous statement allowing the statement following the "or" to replace the previous statement.

[Pholus]

26. Look, let's make this easy.

There are three subphrases in the statement set of by comma-pairs which are amplifications on the definitions. They can be removed without changing the meaning.

1) Subphrase 1 explains in words the law enumerated by title, section and subsection - - the word "which" makes it plain that this is an expansion of the previous thought.

"which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection"

2) Subphrase 2 expands that the interpretation may not always be possible but it should be considered the ideal.

"to the maximum extent permissible"

3) Subphrase 3 explains what exigent circumstances are anticipated, as explained by the words "SUCH AS"

"such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials"

Without the three subphrases (AGAIN, EACH SET OFF BY PAIRS OF COMMAS) the statement reads:

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act in a manner consistent with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Nothing could be more plain. I'd get into how your interpretation makes no sense, but it is pointless to do so.

[Lifelong Dem]

28. I don't see it as separate statements regardless of commas.

I look at it as an addition to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials" "with" the need "for physical searches".

such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

[Pholus]

29. That would make sense only if they hadn't already mentioned the search part.

You know, "the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances"

[Lifelong Dem]

30. They should have spelled it out better.

If it wasn't an addition to the exigent circumstances then use the correct wording instead of using the wording "and".

[Pholus]

31. Rather than debate grammar: In 2007 Russ Feingold disagreed with your take.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_asks_Bush_to_explain_signing_0108.html

[Lifelong Dem]

32. And Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave an answer

Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here. We are only focused on communications, international communications, where one party to the communication is al Qaeda. That is what this program is all about.

To the question

Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales whether the executive branch was relying in other contexts on the theory that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force gave it the authority to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other statutes. Specifically, Senator Leahy asked: Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens?

And all I see is that H.R. 6407 raises serious questions. Still might raise serious questions with this story.

[marym625]

6. In this day and age

What surprises me is that people don't believe this can and does happen. We're talking about an agency that works with corporations to directly tap into phone lines of millions of people.

Edward Snowden is a hero.

[Lifelong Dem]

9. I never knew collecting millions of phone records was directly tapping into those phone lines

[unhappycamper]

13. The NSA is wired into the AT&T backbone.

If it's on the AT&T backbone, the NSA can read/listen and save every phone call, every keystroke and every web site you visit.

[Lifelong Dem]

14. Wired to collect meta data

[unhappycamper]

21. Do you seriously believe they only collected metadata?

I seem to recall in 2005 or 2006 that the NSA tapped into our communications backbone occurred on the west coast. Why wouldn't they save it?

And why did we build a NSA data storage facility in Utah for $xxx million dollars?

The NSA is a lot like the TPP: all done in secret. Secret courts, secret laws, secret rulings and not-so-secret spying on all Americans.

[Lifelong Dem]

23. That's all we have heard of

That they collect meta data from phone companies.

[marym625]

33. Would k&r

If you could for replies. The last paragraph is worthy of an article about it. Comparing the two and showing how secretive this administration is. Hopefully wake up a few apologists

[marym625]

17. old article

We know so much more now.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

[Lifelong Dem]

18. Even Greenwald shows they use FTP to transfer data

What the server allows, which is only meta data, NSA receives data through a file transfer protocol (FTP).

[Atman]

7. Warrants? We don't need no stinking warrants!

ON EDIT: This was intended for the first reply, not the OP.

The naïveté of your statement is breathtaking given what we already know about the NSA. They only need a warrant if they care about the law. They don't care. They've already demonstrated that.

Oh, and a shout-out to Agent Mike. Happy New Year, Mike!

[Pholus]

27. As stated explicitly in Bush's signing statement to HR 6407, still in force. nt

[Pholus]

20. Ever notice the main tactic is to distract on details?

I had discussion above that STARTED with the argument that this couldn't happen without a warrant and after I showed exactly where Bush specifically allowed warrantless searches in 2007 we suddenly switch to an argument about grammar.

The next thread down is turned into an argument about exactly what is collected or the protocols used.

What I notice in common is an attempt to create long, technical arguments that decrease the readability of the threads to third parties.

To me, it seems like disruption tactics.