EXCLUSIVE: NSA Used Technology, not Mind Control, to Intercept Calls
This proves what, exactly?
This sounds serious, but what exactly does Klein say he actually saw? AT&T was providing "full access to its customers' phone calls, and shunted its customers' internet traffic to data-mining equipment" according to Klein. A "secret room," that apparently all AT&T technicians knew about, was openly built beside the room housing AT&T's switching equipment for international and long distance calls. Regular AT&T technicians, including Klein, connected circuits to a splitting cabinet leading to the secret room, which was so secret, it seems many AT&T employees knew they were being built not just there in San Francisco, but in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. Obviously, this was something they were taking great efforts in trying to hide. Then Klein adds:
AT&T provided National Security Agency eavesdroppers with full access to its customers' phone calls, and shunted its customers' internet traffic to data-mining equipment installed in a secret room in its San Francisco switching center, according to a former AT&T worker cooperating in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against the company. Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the EFF's lawsuit this week. That class action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco last January, alleges that AT&T violated federal and state laws by surreptitiously allowing the government to monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants.
So what Klein actually saw was that voice and data communications were shunted into a room that he was not allowed access to, and that he did not see any external filtering equipment that blocked voice or data communications before they entered that room. I ask a simple question: Why would the NSA put any of their top secret, state-of-the-art equipment, including the technologies they use to target and filter calls, anywhere but in a secret room? As a taxpayer, I wouldn't want the equipment laying around where just anyone, be it a Mark Klein or an AT&T employee working for China on the side, could access it, reveal details about it, or possibly corrupt it. Klein's statements are based at least partially on politics, as he shows a dislike for the Administration in his statements. In the end, he only confirms the existence of the location of one specific NSA intercept site, and nothing about the program itself. He adds very little to the national debate. Once again, the evidence (or lack thereof) is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that seems to matter.
Klein said he came forward because he does not believe that the Bush administration is being truthful about the extent of its extrajudicial monitoring of Americans' communications. "Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:52 AM
Comments
1
Who needs his testimony? We already know such monitoring is being done, and what he has to say adds nothing to the debate at all. But of course he will get a lot of MSM attention as if he'd actually said something.
Posted by: Fish at April 08, 2006 10:22 AM (KpjA/)
2
We already know such monitoring is being done....
Really? And how, exactly, do we know that? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Please do share with all of us your unimpeachable information source for this newsworthy breakthrough.
Who is doing the monitoring? What are the specific targets? Who is responsible for authorizing such monitoring? What sort of computers and sorting algorithms are being employed? Which government agency is involved? The NSA? The CIA? The DIA? The Department of Homeland Security? The Department of the Treasury? The Federal Communications Commission? The Department of Justice? The Department of Defense?
You really don't know squat, do you?
Really? And how, exactly, do we know that? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Please do share with all of us your unimpeachable information source for this newsworthy breakthrough.
Who is doing the monitoring? What are the specific targets? Who is responsible for authorizing such monitoring? What sort of computers and sorting algorithms are being employed? Which government agency is involved? The NSA? The CIA? The DIA? The Department of Homeland Security? The Department of the Treasury? The Federal Communications Commission? The Department of Justice? The Department of Defense?
You really don't know squat, do you?
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 08, 2006 11:02 AM (rhncG)
3
Hey Retired Spy, don't get on them too hard. The dim-wit party has operated totally on information they didn't know for the past 35 years. Fear is a tactic they use well. Evidently there is now 60% of the American public so retarded the can't figure out (a result of the failed school systems) what's really going on and there is mountains of information (truth)out there. Most of the time ir takes 10 minutes or less to reveal the lies of the dim-wits and the antique MSM, but once a lie is published/broadcast the retarded never believe the truth. The small information pocket in their brain is already full of the lie.
Posted by: scrapiron at April 08, 2006 11:36 AM (y6n8O)
4
Additionally, I read through the Suit itself that was listed as a PDF file, and there is a whole lot of conjecture in the entire suit. Frequent use of the weasel-worded legalese terms like "information and belief" tell me that there is not much substance to any of it.
The primary information source? The Los Angeles Times. Duh!
There were "312 terabytes of data detailing nearly every telephone communication on AT&T's domestic network since 2001, according to the complaint." Who on earth would waste time trying to read all the emails or listen to all the conversations recorded in that alleged database? There are not enough people in the entire Federal Government to even put a dent in such a massive database.
I guess these LA Times folks and others would rather have all that alleged database released to Al Qaeda than to the Government of the United States? Shucks. That would not violate the Fourth Amendment, would it? Well, yes it would, actually. AT&T would be violating the law by just "monitoring" these data, much less recording them.
It will really be interesting to see how this one plays out, but I suspect that the alleged database may contain external information - email addresses and telephone numbers and physical addresses - that correlate with known external information obtained via NSA surveillance of international communications involving Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and from other HUMINT sources.
It seems prudent to me that the U.S. Government may just be a bit interested in searching the alleged database for known externals to see if there may be some potential for buried nuggets of valuable Intelligence.
These twits at the LA Times and elsewhere don't know whether or not the NSA or the Department of Justice or the FISA Court was involved in any of this activity - if there even IS such activity.
What a bunch of boneheaded fools ....
The primary information source? The Los Angeles Times. Duh!
There were "312 terabytes of data detailing nearly every telephone communication on AT&T's domestic network since 2001, according to the complaint." Who on earth would waste time trying to read all the emails or listen to all the conversations recorded in that alleged database? There are not enough people in the entire Federal Government to even put a dent in such a massive database.
I guess these LA Times folks and others would rather have all that alleged database released to Al Qaeda than to the Government of the United States? Shucks. That would not violate the Fourth Amendment, would it? Well, yes it would, actually. AT&T would be violating the law by just "monitoring" these data, much less recording them.
It will really be interesting to see how this one plays out, but I suspect that the alleged database may contain external information - email addresses and telephone numbers and physical addresses - that correlate with known external information obtained via NSA surveillance of international communications involving Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and from other HUMINT sources.
It seems prudent to me that the U.S. Government may just be a bit interested in searching the alleged database for known externals to see if there may be some potential for buried nuggets of valuable Intelligence.
These twits at the LA Times and elsewhere don't know whether or not the NSA or the Department of Justice or the FISA Court was involved in any of this activity - if there even IS such activity.
What a bunch of boneheaded fools ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 08, 2006 03:23 PM (rhncG)
5
Retired Spy...
"Really? And how, exactly, do we know that?"
Because the President said we were monitoring messages to and from Al Qaeda. If you want I can link you to the speech where he said that.
"Really? And how, exactly, do we know that?"
Because the President said we were monitoring messages to and from Al Qaeda. If you want I can link you to the speech where he said that.
Posted by: Fish at April 08, 2006 05:41 PM (KpjA/)
6
OK, Fish ...
Please DO cite that statement as a quote from the President of the United States - not just some accusations from the Daily KOS or some other worthless source. Where has the President stated, specifically, that American citizens were being targeted and monitored?
Please DO cite that statement as a quote from the President of the United States - not just some accusations from the Daily KOS or some other worthless source. Where has the President stated, specifically, that American citizens were being targeted and monitored?
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 08, 2006 06:04 PM (rhncG)
7
Wait a minute, Fish Wrap ...
What is illegal about monitoring communications to and from al Qaeda operatives? Are you implying that the NSA should not be monitoring these communications - even if they involve persons inside the United States, citizens and non-citizens? Why not? You had best review the definitions of those who are enemies of the United States and those who are collaborating. You might just want to start with FISA Section 1801 that cites the definitions. Just monitoring American citizens willy-nilly is an entirely different matter, and you have zero to support that sort of activity ever happening under this administration.
What is illegal about monitoring communications to and from al Qaeda operatives? Are you implying that the NSA should not be monitoring these communications - even if they involve persons inside the United States, citizens and non-citizens? Why not? You had best review the definitions of those who are enemies of the United States and those who are collaborating. You might just want to start with FISA Section 1801 that cites the definitions. Just monitoring American citizens willy-nilly is an entirely different matter, and you have zero to support that sort of activity ever happening under this administration.
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 08, 2006 07:06 PM (rhncG)
8
RS,
You gotta remember that people like Fish think that Saddam Hussein was a good guy and that the insurgent/terrorists are really "freedom fighters".
Didn't Clinton have a data mining program called Echelon - You know were he monitored US citizens communications for "key" words?
You gotta remember that people like Fish think that Saddam Hussein was a good guy and that the insurgent/terrorists are really "freedom fighters".
Didn't Clinton have a data mining program called Echelon - You know were he monitored US citizens communications for "key" words?
Posted by: Specter at April 08, 2006 08:24 PM (ybfXM)
9
Indeed he did, Specter. Of course, I was out of the NSA by January 1994. So what could I possible know about Intelligence collection and analysis at this point in time? :-) Surely you don't think that Wee Willy would have done something without FISA authorization, do you?
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 08, 2006 09:18 PM (rhncG)
10
I guess I've not been clear in my comments here. You gentlemen seem to think I'm siding with this Mark Klein idiot. I am saying we (the U.S.) are monitoring communications with Al Qaeda. Many of these Al Qaeda members or sympathizers are indeed citizens of this country and said communications are therefore between citizens of this country, residing in this country, and foreign nationals. Like I said in my first statement, what Mark Klein says adds nothing to the debate. Why? Because he has no evidence, no proof to back up his speculations or beliefs that anything more than that is happening. He obviously hates the current administration, is a left wing wacko, and is therefore make a lot of unfounded noise hoping to either discredit this administration, or to get his fifteen minutes of fame.
I would be screaming at everyone from the President down if we WERE NOT monitoring any and all communications that might help us capture or kill terrorists, disrupt their operations and organizations, and head off another 9/11.
The President says as much in a speech listed on the White House web site here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html
About the 8th and 9th paragraphs down.
I would be screaming at everyone from the President down if we WERE NOT monitoring any and all communications that might help us capture or kill terrorists, disrupt their operations and organizations, and head off another 9/11.
The President says as much in a speech listed on the White House web site here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html
About the 8th and 9th paragraphs down.
Posted by: Fish at April 09, 2006 12:04 AM (KpjA/)
11
Interesting how Mr. Klein knows what is in a room he has never been in, down to the specific equipment. Yeah, that's going to carry a lot of weight in court.
And how does he know this guy was from NSA? I doubt he went around the halls announcing that.
And how does he know this guy was from NSA? I doubt he went around the halls announcing that.
Posted by: MikeM at April 09, 2006 06:40 AM (XU9uQ)
12
Sorry if I misinterpreted Fish and thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: Specter at April 09, 2006 12:15 PM (ybfXM)
13
Sorry, Fish ...
I misunderstood what you were writing too. I assumed - incorrectly - that you were criticizing the Bush Administration for conducting blanket surveillance of U.S. citizens.
I misunderstood what you were writing too. I assumed - incorrectly - that you were criticizing the Bush Administration for conducting blanket surveillance of U.S. citizens.
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 09, 2006 02:02 PM (rhncG)
14
No apology necessary gentlemen. Had I been clear with my earlier statements there would have been no confusion. The fact you've both offered apology proves my first usage of the word was a correct assessment of you both. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Fish at April 09, 2006 04:44 PM (KpjA/)
15
So the best the libs can come up with to challange the President, the Attorney General, the leadership of the House and Senate is a telphone technician? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Posted by: Ray Robison at April 09, 2006 09:24 PM (4joLu)
16
The secret rooms were for stretching our coffee breaks an extra 20 or 30 minutes. There's going to be trouble now.
Posted by: Dennis at April 09, 2006 10:43 PM (MkC0g)
17
I think the point is that ALL traffic is defacto available for screening without court order. The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect Americans from unnecessary/unwarranted search.
Had Bill Clinton or another Democratic president installed a similar program, wouldn't the right be concerned? Wasn't Hillary under attack accessing FBI files, etc.? What are the safe guards in place to protect Americans?
Anyone who really understands networking knows how easily something like this can be abused. For instance, if all traffic passes thru the NSA system then copies of the data can be created. Therefore, all of your e-mails, web searches, web sufing and phone calls could be duplicated and searched at any time.
Maybe you trust the Bush Administration, but what about the next administration or the one after that? Unfortunately, history has many examples of governments abusing and oppressing their citizens.
It's like separation of religion from government. What if you're a Christian who moves to new Dearborn, MI which has a predominately Muslim population. How cool would it be to suddenly find yourself having to live under "Muslim" law? What if the local police have access to spy tech to listen to surveil you to ensure that you follow the rules? Similarly, what if your a Protestand who moves to a Catholic dominated city? Would you want the authorities to monitor you to ensure that you follow Catholic teachings? I'm Protestant, I like my personal relationship with Jesus and don't want to confess to a priest or pray to saints.
It's easy to dismiss these things except there are so many examples of governments doing destructive things to their citizens. For instance, in the U.S. up until the mid-1970s Americans could be forcibly sterilized in some states. Until 1967, interracial marriage was illegal and punishable by felony convictions. Were it not for interracial relationships there would be no Colin Powell, Martin Luther King Jr., and others.
Finally, I read a really good article I'd like to recommend..
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/rebelsclue2.html
Had Bill Clinton or another Democratic president installed a similar program, wouldn't the right be concerned? Wasn't Hillary under attack accessing FBI files, etc.? What are the safe guards in place to protect Americans?
Anyone who really understands networking knows how easily something like this can be abused. For instance, if all traffic passes thru the NSA system then copies of the data can be created. Therefore, all of your e-mails, web searches, web sufing and phone calls could be duplicated and searched at any time.
Maybe you trust the Bush Administration, but what about the next administration or the one after that? Unfortunately, history has many examples of governments abusing and oppressing their citizens.
It's like separation of religion from government. What if you're a Christian who moves to new Dearborn, MI which has a predominately Muslim population. How cool would it be to suddenly find yourself having to live under "Muslim" law? What if the local police have access to spy tech to listen to surveil you to ensure that you follow the rules? Similarly, what if your a Protestand who moves to a Catholic dominated city? Would you want the authorities to monitor you to ensure that you follow Catholic teachings? I'm Protestant, I like my personal relationship with Jesus and don't want to confess to a priest or pray to saints.
It's easy to dismiss these things except there are so many examples of governments doing destructive things to their citizens. For instance, in the U.S. up until the mid-1970s Americans could be forcibly sterilized in some states. Until 1967, interracial marriage was illegal and punishable by felony convictions. Were it not for interracial relationships there would be no Colin Powell, Martin Luther King Jr., and others.
Finally, I read a really good article I'd like to recommend..
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/rebelsclue2.html
Posted by: noah at April 09, 2006 11:53 PM (QnwsF)
18
Had Bill Clinton or another Democratic president installed a similar program, wouldn't the right be concerned?
He did issue what is actually a far wider-ranging, far less targeted program, and rightly so (do note, however, the wikipedia entry eroneously conflates the two). The problem with some folks is that they are more paranoid over baseless claims that our government is out to get us while they are busy ignoring very real threats.
Liberals are not really threatened by Bush and deep down they know it, but it is far easier to label him an enemy and attack him than admit that the multi-culturalism and peace at any cost philosophy they've been preaching is to blame for most of our present problems both domestically and internationally, adn that real hard work far more intensive than "blame Bush" must occur. He is the scapegoat for their own pitiful failings.
The Democrats should change their party symbol from an ass to something even more appropriate, like an ostrich with his head buried in the sand.
Had Bill Clinton or another Democratic president installed a similar program, wouldn't the right be concerned?
He did issue what is actually a far wider-ranging, far less targeted program, and rightly so (do note, however, the wikipedia entry eroneously conflates the two). The problem with some folks is that they are more paranoid over baseless claims that our government is out to get us while they are busy ignoring very real threats.
Liberals are not really threatened by Bush and deep down they know it, but it is far easier to label him an enemy and attack him than admit that the multi-culturalism and peace at any cost philosophy they've been preaching is to blame for most of our present problems both domestically and internationally, adn that real hard work far more intensive than "blame Bush" must occur. He is the scapegoat for their own pitiful failings.
The Democrats should change their party symbol from an ass to something even more appropriate, like an ostrich with his head buried in the sand.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 10, 2006 08:31 AM (g5Nba)
19
Isn't it interesting that since MSM did not make an issue about ECHELON the left does not know about it? How many clueless ones are going to come here and say the same thing - If a Dem President did it.....THEY DID. Read - Learn - Study - Analyze.
Posted by: Specter at April 10, 2006 10:00 AM (ybfXM)
20
What is in that big scary database is a whole lot less exciting if you have to actually look at it. It's full of these things known as CDRs. For those of you who have never maintained a PBX much less worked for a telco, those are "call detail records" and they are skull-splittingly boring to look at. No titillating stuff at all unless you get excited to know something like XXX-XXX-XXXX called YYY-YYY-YYYY at NNNNNN for a duration of MMMM. Groovy stuff if you want to know if that new shipping clerk is the one calling 976-spankme but hardly the stuff of deep dark conspiracy. There's nothing in it about who was actually talking on the line or what they said, much less anyone's names. A 312TB database sounds like a big deal but when you consider how many calls go through a switch at any given time, all I can say is that I am surprised it isn't bigger. And how the hell can anyone seriously claim to be shocked or upset that the telco kept a record of their transaction? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed if the bank didn't keep records like that? Or maybe you would prefer to be billed based on how much the carrier feels like charging when they get around to billing you?
If you want to be upset that the government poked around in that database fine, but trying to make it sound like the database was chock-a-block with juicy details of peoples calls is irresponsible BS.
If you want to be upset that the government poked around in that database fine, but trying to make it sound like the database was chock-a-block with juicy details of peoples calls is irresponsible BS.
Posted by: niall at April 10, 2006 11:44 AM (03P1/)
21
Very good points, Niall. As for Noah, he appears to be living in a world bordering on psychotic paranoia. Having worked for the NSA for 36 years, I can assure you that there are not enough employees in the entire Federal government - nor is there any interest - to collect and store and analyze such volumes of information. The NSA DOES NOT collect the sort of stuff to which Noah refers. It would be foolish and a waste of precious resources. I guess Noah must see a conspiracy under every rock. Come out and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine, Noah.
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 10, 2006 01:19 PM (rhncG)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0115 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0073 seconds, 29 records returned.
Page size 23 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.