Author Topic: Intel Matters  (Read 321493 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
US in through the Brit back door?
« Reply #300 on: June 21, 2013, 09:25:09 PM »
BD:

If I am reading that piece on UK spying, they are reading content and sharing it with us?!?

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #301 on: June 22, 2013, 11:30:26 AM »
Indeed.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #302 on: June 22, 2013, 04:22:14 PM »
 :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

What percentage of US correspondence content do you think is being read by the Brits?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #303 on: June 24, 2013, 08:33:50 AM »
I saw it surmised that Snowden flew to Russia precisely because it enabled him to use Aeroflot, which is owned by the Russian government, so that he would not have to worry about being arrested on behalf of the US by Interpol. 

I'm guessing he used Aeroflot to fly to Ecuador too, or maybe Interpol doesn't operate in Moscow so that may not have been necessary.

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Europe furious, 'shocked' by report of U.S. spying
« Reply #304 on: June 30, 2013, 06:05:47 PM »
:-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

What percentage of US correspondence content do you think is being read by the Brits?

This suggests an answer, and MUCH more:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/30/world/europe/eu-nsa/index.html

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Contracting out US national security
« Reply #305 on: July 03, 2013, 05:36:50 AM »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/02/contracting-out-us-national-security

From the article:

Despite the cheers and jeers at leakers such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden over the last few years, it would seem access to such information is less protected than ever. Serving intelligence officers are allowed to sell their skills to corporations. High-level intelligence work, once closely guarded, is farmed out to contractors, who leak information like a sieve.

The Obama White House has conducted more leak investigations than any previous administration, now including the leak of a cyber-warfare campaign against Iran by a top US army general, James Cartwright. We are selling our national security in an effort to save a buck – and we will continue to pay for it in other ways.

In 2010, Eamon Javers reported on CIA's controversial "moonlighting" policy, which allowed active intelligence officers to seek permission to work in the private sector on the side if they made full disclosure and it did not conflict with their duties. Generally, the same standard applies to all federal employees who are not political appointees.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #306 on: July 03, 2013, 06:46:59 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #309 on: July 19, 2013, 08:48:22 AM »
The CIA's New Black Bag Is Digital
When the NSA can't break into your computer, these guys break into your house.
BY MATTHEW M. AID | JULY 17, 2013

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/16/the_cias_new_black_bag_is_digital_nsa_cooperation

During a coffee break at an intelligence conference held in The Netherlands a few years back, a senior Scandinavian counterterrorism official regaled me with a story. One of his service's surveillance teams was conducting routine monitoring of a senior militant leader when they suddenly noticed through their high-powered surveillance cameras two men breaking into the militant's apartment. The target was at Friday evening prayers at the local mosque. But rather than ransack the apartment and steal the computer equipment and other valuables while he was away -- as any right-minded burglar would normally have done -- one of the men pulled out a disk and loaded some programs onto the resident's laptop computer while the other man kept watch at the window. The whole operation took less than two minutes, then the two trespassers fled the way they came, leaving no trace that they had ever been there.

It did not take long for the official to determine that the two men were, in fact, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives conducting what is known in the U.S. intelligence community as either a "black bag job" or a "surreptitious entry" operation. Back in the Cold War, such a mission might have involved cracking safes, stealing code books, or photographing the settings on cipher machines. Today, this kind of break-in is known inside the CIA and National Security Agency as an "off-net operation," a clandestine human intelligence mission whose specific purpose is to surreptitiously gain access to the computer systems and email accounts of targets of high interest to America's spies. As we've learned in recent weeks, the National Security Agency's ability to electronically eavesdrop from afar is massive. But it is not infinite. There are times when the agency cannot gain access to the computers or gadgets they'd like to listen in on. And so they call in the CIA's black bag crew for help.

The CIA's clandestine service is now conducting these sorts of black bag operations on behalf of the NSA, but at a tempo not seen since the height of the Cold War. Moreover, these missions, as well as a series of parallel signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection operations conducted by the CIA's Office of Technical Collection, have proven to be instrumental in facilitating and improving the NSA's SIGINT collection efforts in the years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Over the past decade specially-trained CIA clandestine operators have mounted over one hundred extremely sensitive black bag jobs designed to penetrate foreign government and military communications and computer systems, as well as the computer systems of some of the world's largest foreign multinational corporations. Spyware software has been secretly planted in computer servers; secure telephone lines have been bugged; fiber optic cables, data switching centers and telephone exchanges have been tapped; and computer backup tapes and disks have been stolen or surreptitiously copied in these operations.

In other words, the CIA has become instrumental in setting up the shadowy surveillance dragnet that has now been thrown into public view. Sources within the U.S. intelligence community confirm that since 9/11, CIA clandestine operations have given the NSA access to a number of new and critically important targets around the world, especially in China and elsewhere in East Asia, as well as the Middle East, the Near East, and South Asia. (I'm not aware of any such operations here on U.S. soil.) In one particularly significant operation conducted a few years back in a strife-ridden South Asian nation, a team of CIA technical operations officers installed a sophisticated tap on a switching center servicing several fiber-optic cable trunk lines, which has allowed NSA to intercept in real time some of the most sensitive internal communications traffic by that country's general staff and top military commanders for the past several years. In another more recent case, CIA case officers broke into a home in Western Europe and surreptitiously loaded Agency-developed spyware into the personal computer of a man suspected of being a major recruiter for individuals wishing to fight with the militant group al-Nusra Front in Syria, allowing CIA operatives to read all of his email traffic and monitor his Skype calls on his computer.

The fact that the NSA and CIA now work so closely together is fascinating on a number of levels. But it's particularly remarkable accomplishment, given the fact that the two agencies until fairly recently hated each others' guts.

Ingenues and TBARs

As detailed in my history of the NSA, The Secret Sentry, the CIA and NSA had what could best be described as a contentious relationship during the Cold War era. Some NSA veterans still refer to their colleagues at the CIA as 'TBARs,' which stands for 'Those Bastards Across the River,' with the river in question being the Potomac. Perhaps reflecting their higher level of educational accomplishment, CIA officers have an even more lurid series of monikers for their NSA colleagues at Fort Meade, most of which cannot be repeated in polite company because of recurring references to fecal matter. One retired CIA official described his NSA counterparts as "a bunch of damn ingenues." Another CIA veteran perhaps put it best when he described the Cold War relationship amongst and between his agency and the NSA as "the best of enemies."
The historical antagonism between the two agencies started at the top. Allen W. Dulles, who was the director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961, disliked NSA director General Ralph Canine so intensely that he deliberately kept the NSA in the dark about a number of the agency's high-profile SIGINT projects, like the celebrated Berlin Tunnel cable tapping operation in the mid-1950s. The late Richard M. Helms, who was director of the CIA from 1966 to 1973, told me over drinks at the Army-Navy Club in downtown Washington, D.C. only half jokingly that during his thirty-plus years in the U.S. intelligence community, his relations with the KGB were, in his words, "warmer and more collegial" than with the NSA. William E. Colby, who served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1973-1976, had the same problem. Colby was so frustrated by his inability to assert any degree of control over the NSA that he told a congressional committee that "I think it is clear I do not have command authority over the [NSA]." And the animus between CIA director Admiral Stansfield Turner (CIA director from 1977-1981) and his counterpart at the NSA, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, was so intense that they could only communicate through intermediaries.

But the 9/11 terrorist attacks changed the operational dynamic between these two agencies, perhaps forever. In the thirteen years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the NSA and CIA have largely, but not completely, moved past the Cold War animus. In addition, both agencies have become increasingly dependent on one another for the success of their respective intelligence operations, leading to what can best be described as an increasingly close symbiotic relationship between these two titans of the U.S. intelligence community.

While the increasingly intimate relationship between the NSA and CIA is not a secret, the specific nature and extent of the work that each agency does for the other is deemed to be extremely sensitive, especially since many of these operations are directed against friends and allies of the United States. For example, the Special Collection Service (SCS), the secretive joint CIA-NSA clandestine SIGINT organization based in Beltsville, Maryland, now operates more than 65 listening posts inside U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. While recent media reports have focused on the presence of SCS listening posts in certain Latin America capitals, intelligence sources confirm that most of the organization's resources have been focused over the past decade on the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia. For example, virtually every U.S. embassy in the Middle East now hosts a SCS SIGINT station that monitors, twenty-four hours a day, the complete spectrum of electronic communications traffic within a one hundred mile radius of the embassy site. The biggest problem that the SCS currently faces is that it has no presence in some of the U.S. intelligence community's top targets, such as Iran and North Korea, because the U.S. government has no diplomatic relations with these countries.

At the same time, SIGINT coming from the NSA has become a crucial means whereby the CIA can not only validate the intelligence it gets from its oftentimes unreliable agents, but SIGINT has been, and remains the lynchpin underlying the success over the past nine years of the CIA's secret unmanned drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere around the world.

But the biggest changes have occurred in the CIA's human intelligence (HUMINT) collection efforts on behalf of NSA. Over the past decade, foreign government telecommunications and computer systems have become one of the most important targeting priorities of the CIA's National Clandestine Service (NCS), which since the spring of this year has been headed by one of the agency's veteran Africa and Middle East hands. The previous director, Michael J. Sulick, is widely credited with making HUMINT collection against foreign computer and telecommunications systems one of the service's top priority targets after he rose to the top of the NCS in September 2007.


Today, a cadre of several hundred CIA NCS case officers, known as Technical Operations Officers, have been recruited and trained to work exclusively on penetrating foreign communications and computer systems targets so that NSA can gain access to the information stored on or transmitted by these systems. Several dozen of these officers now work fulltime in several offices at NSA headquarters at Fort George G. Meade, something which would have been inconceivable prior to 9/11.

CIA operatives have also intensified their efforts to recruit IT specialists and computer systems operators employed by foreign government ministries, major military command headquarters staffs, big foreign multinational corporations, and important international non-governmental organizations.

Since 9/11, the NCS has also developed a variety of so-called "black boxes" which can quickly crack computer passwords, bypass commercially-available computer security software systems, and clone cellular telephones -- all without leaving a trace. To use one rudimentary example, computer users oftentimes forget to erase default accounts and passwords when installing a system, or incorrectly set protections on computer network servers or e-mail accounts. This is a vulnerability which operatives now routinely exploit.

For many countries in the world, especially in the developing world, CIA operatives can now relatively easily obtain telephone metadata records, such as details of all long distance or international telephone calls, through secret liaison arrangements with local security services and police agencies.

America's European allies are a different story. While the connections between the NSA and, for example, the British signals intelligence service GCHQ are well-documented, the CIA has a harder time obtaining personal information of British citizens. The same is true in Germany, Scandinavia and the Netherlands, which have also been most reluctant to share this sort of data with the CIA. But the French intelligence and security services have continued to share this sort of data with the CIA, particularly in counterterrorism operations.

U.S. intelligence officials are generally comfortable with the new collaboration. Those I have spoken to over the past three weeks have only one major concern. The fear is that details of these operations, including the identities of the targets covered by these operations, currently reside in the four laptops reportedly held by Edward Snowden, who has spent the past three weeks in the transit lounge at Sheremetyevo Airport outside Moscow waiting for his fate to be decided. Officials at both the CIA and NSA know that the public disclosure of these operations would cause incalculable damage to U.S. intelligence operations abroad as well as massive embarrassment to the U.S. government. If anyone wonders why the U.S. government wants to get its hands on Edward Snowden and his computers so badly, this is an important reason why.


bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #314 on: August 01, 2013, 06:34:29 AM »
When Feinstein writes "Ultimately, this court determines if “probable cause” is sufficient to grant the warrant to collect the content of the call."  this sure sounds like the contents of the call HAVE been recorded, yes?  Or am I misunderstanding.

That said, though I remain in doubt, there seems to be some thought and substance in her piece.

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
NSA lies! It IS collecting content!!!
« Reply #315 on: August 02, 2013, 10:26:08 AM »
When Feinstein writes "Ultimately, this court determines if “probable cause” is sufficient to grant the warrant to collect the content of the call."  this sure sounds like the contents of the call HAVE been recorded, yes?  Or am I misunderstanding.

That said, though I remain in doubt, there seems to be some thought and substance in her piece.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/whistleblowers_08-01.html
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 12:07:19 PM by Crafty_Dog »

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Getting XKeyscore Right
« Reply #316 on: August 04, 2013, 09:12:20 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Not for the first time in the last five years
« Reply #317 on: August 04, 2013, 09:16:13 AM »
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 12:35:27 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #318 on: August 08, 2013, 06:42:16 AM »
Yesterday it was reported that we found out about the big planned AQ hit that has led to 20+ of our embassies being closed by listening in on a giant conference call amongst AQ HQ in Afpakia and its various branches around much of the world, especially AQAP (Yemen).

How can this not be profoundly damaging to our ability to listen in to the Bad Guys next time?!?   How on earth can this be used to justify, as some are trying to do, recording and storing all phone calls of all Americans?!?

The mind boggles , , ,

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
American blabbermouths hurt Israel
« Reply #319 on: August 08, 2013, 07:49:25 AM »
second post

How American Leaks May Help Arm Israel's Enemies
by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
August 8, 2013
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4117/how-american-leaks-may-help-arm-israel-enemies


Israel has struck four targets in Syria this year, according to international media reports, hitting shipments of Iranian and Russian weapons that were– or were about to be – moved to Hizballah's possession in Lebanon.

The most recent reported attack occurred on July 5 in Latakia, allegedly targeting advanced Russian surface to sea missiles.

The chaos and carnage of the Syrian civil war is a conflict Israel would like to avoid, but Israeli leaders have stated that any attempts by Hizballah to exploit the situation to import advanced arms, such as guided missiles that can threaten Israeli population centers and strategically sensitive targets, are a red line Jerusalem will not accept.
Low signature strikes, if they occurred, are ways for Israel to take pinpoint action to protect its national security, without getting dragged into a wider conflict.
Officially, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied these strikes, apparently in order to avoid placing the Assad regime in a position where it feels it must retaliate.

Indeed, plausible deniability, and a wish to avoid opening a second front in the midst of a civil war, have allowed Assad to ignore the alleged strikes, with the exception of isolated border incidents and a threat to retaliate to future strikes.

Yet, some in the United States seem not to share Jerusalem's reported desire to keep the strikes low profile, and have gone on record to leak details of the incidents. Such leaks cannot be good for Israel, whether the sources intended to cause harm or not.

In a series of U.S. media reports, unnamed American sources have provided information on alleged Israel Air Force strikes in Syria. Most recently, sources described as "intelligence analysts" told the New York Times that the July 5 Latakia strike did not succeed in destroying all of the Russian missiles it targeted, that Assad ordered his army to set fire to the site to try and hide that fact, and that another attack will be needed to complete the mission.

Previously, sources described as American officials told the New York Times Israel carried out the Latakia strike.

In May, an anonymous American official said Israel targeted Iranian Fateh 110 missiles in Damascus air strikes.

These sorts of reports have caused puzzlement and confusion among Israeli observers. Who is behind these leaks, and what are their motivations?

The world of intelligence is murky and confusing, and it is difficult to draw clear conclusions.

Some observers have suggested that someone with high-level intelligence is concerned that the reported strikes may lead to an all-out Israeli-Syrian conflict.

The latest New York Times report effectively provided Assad with an early warning, and instructed him to expect a further strike, thereby sabotaging a potential mission.
These reports raise rather disturbing questions about the nature of the cooperation between the intelligence establishments of the two countries.  To be sure, Israeli officials adamantly maintain that overall defense cooperation with the U.S. has never been better. From missile defense exercises to joint air force drills, and in many other areas, the two militaries work closely together in a fruitful relationship, as the remainder of the Middle East faces anarchy and extremism.

While the big picture on cooperation is encouraging, a few pixels on the screen don't seem to be quite in line with the rest of the image.

Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, stated that "the mere fact that such leaks happen often indicates that the Pentagon leadership does not have Israel's interests at heart."

Inbar acknowledged the difficulties outside observers have in attributing motive for the leaks.

He listed several potential causes, beginning with the most apparent one: The wish to prevent future Israeli strikes.

That apparent leak could be part of a larger objection to the Israeli strikes among some quarters in the Pentagon.

It is possible that the Pentagon is split into two camps – one opposed to U.S. intervention in Syria, a position formulated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and adopted by the White House – and another camp favoring intervention, a stance promoted by Secretary of State John Kerry.

The anti-intervention camp might be concerned that the alleged strikes risk sparking a larger-scale conflict, which could force American involvement.

But it is just as conceivable that the pro-intervention camp is behind the leaks, using them to embarrass those who argue that an American intervention in Syria would require many sorties, would be complex, and holds no guarantee of improving the situation.

By pointing to alleged Israeli strikes, the interventionists may be trying to show that taking action in Syria is not as difficult as the rival camp suggests.

Lastly, Inbar said, the reports might be little more than the product of a will by sources in the Pentagon to maintain a good relationship with the media.

"What is clear is that they do not come from elements friendly to Israel, because Israel's preferred modus operandi is low profile. [This is] intended to allow Assad to refrain from reacting," Inbar said.

A second security expert said he is reasonably certain that the leaks did not come directly from the Obama administration, and doubted that they resulted from an official Pentagon directive to share the information with the media.

"Coordination with the U.S. administration now is better than in the past," said Dan Scheuftan, director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa.
At the same time, he noted, U.S. intelligence has played risky games in the past to influence political decisions. He recounted the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed that Iran froze its nuclear program, as a politicized assessment designed to dissuade former President George W. Bush from launching strikes on Iran.
"U.S. intelligence has played very dangerous games in the political field. I can't rule out someone in U.S. intelligence as a possibility," Scheuftan said. "There could be elements within American intelligence that are interested in damaging Israel, or promoting a certain policy,".

The leakers, whoever they are, could be creating real harm for Israel's overall policy of keeping advanced arms from reaching Iran's proxy terrorist group in Lebanon. That's a problem for American officials to address regardless of whether that harm is deliberate or inadvertent.

Next week, Dempsey arrives in Israel for talks with Israeli leaders. A recent article in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth proposed that among the burning issues of Iran and Syria, talks will also be held to "smooth over the issue of alleged leaks."

In light of the fact that cooperation with the U.S. is one of Israel's most critical strategic assets, perhaps Dempsey's visit will be an opportunity for both sides to deal with the alleged leaks constructively, while focusing on the many joint security challenges faced by both countries, and continuing the already superb cooperation that is in place.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #320 on: August 09, 2013, 04:50:24 AM »
Yesterday it was reported that we found out about the big planned AQ hit that has led to 20+ of our embassies being closed by listening in on a giant conference call amongst AQ HQ in Afpakia and its various branches around much of the world, especially AQAP (Yemen).

How can this not be profoundly damaging to our ability to listen in to the Bad Guys next time?!?   How on earth can this be used to justify, as some are trying to do, recording and storing all phone calls of all Americans?!?

The mind boggles , , ,


http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/a-hard-to-justify-leak/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #321 on: August 09, 2013, 08:59:39 AM »
Exactly, though I would not let the reporters off the hook as easily as does this piece.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Some warn against NSA changes
« Reply #322 on: August 11, 2013, 02:07:46 PM »
Republicans Warn Against NSA Changes
By Janet Hook and Sarah Portlock
WSJ

Some senior Republicans in Congress on Sunday threw cold water on a cornerstone of  President Barack Obama’s plan to revamp the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs–his proposal to provide a new advocate for privacy concerns.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R., Texas) raised questions about the proposal, which would add an advocate in the proceedings of the secret court that oversees the agency’s sweeping phone-data collection. He said he feared it would slow down antiterrorism efforts when time is of the essence.

Mr. McCaul, who dealt with these issues as a counterterrorism prosecutor, said changes like those Mr. Obama proposed would “slow down the efficacy and efficiency of our counterterrorism investigation.”

“I don’t think that’s the right way to go,” Mr. McCaul said, speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Also expressing concern about the proposal was Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.), a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee. He said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that it would be “very impractical” in cases where decisions have to be made quickly for terrorism investigations.

“We cannot afford to have this become a debating society,” said Mr. King. “We need decisions made quickly, yes or no, up or down, because lives are at stake.”

Those cautionary words from senior Republicans suggested the proposals Mr. Obama outlined at a Friday news conference may meet resistance on Capitol Hill. Some of the proposals, including changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, would require action by Congress, which has been deeply split on these issues.

Mr. Obama didn’t give many details of his proposals, and Congress is in recess until early September. Some civil libertarians said the president didn’t go far enough in addressing their concerns about privacy and government overreach.

At the foreign intelligence court, the government presents its case for collecting phone data to a judge, without other parties present. The court almost always approves the final government proposal.

While the Obama administration had defended the current court structure, administration officials said Friday that new measures were needed to restore public confidence in the court

Michael Hayden, a former director of the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency under President George W. Bush, said he believed that Mr. Obama’s proposal would not have to be as intrusive as critics were suggesting.

“He was not talking about getting public defender in there for Tony Soprano every time you want to go up on a wiretap with him,” Mr. Hayden said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” A privacy advocate with a more narrowly defined role “may be useful for transparency and it may be useful for confidence,” Mr. Hayden said.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
CIA files on Naom Chomsky
« Reply #323 on: August 16, 2013, 07:43:30 AM »


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/13/after_multiple_denials_cia_admits_to_snooping_on_noam_chomsky

If he was going to North Vietnam during the war, we wouldn't we have files on him? Hell, wouldn't it be dereliction of duty not to?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Consequences of Manning's treason
« Reply #324 on: August 29, 2013, 06:33:02 AM »
http://cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=08THEHAGUE397&q=nusog

2008

Courtesy of the traitor Bradley Manning, and Wikileaks.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Goldberg on Snowden's leak of budget secrets
« Reply #325 on: August 31, 2013, 05:51:51 AM »
Also yesterday came the revelation that Edward Snowden & Co. have given the Washington Post the entire "black budget" of the United States of America. Normally, this would be seen as very bad news because it would mean that the Chinese, the Russians, and the rest of the Legion of Doom could learn crucial details about our clandestine security apparatus simply by reading American newspapers. The good news is that this probably isn't happening in this case. The bad news is that it isn't happening because the Russians and the Chinese almost surely got that data directly from Snowden already. And not just the Post's highlights.

This isn't a leak. A leak suggests that the main body of liquid is intact and only a little bit has poured out. This is a flood. This is an emptying. This is a spill. And if you think it's okay for this stuff to be out in the open, you basically believe the government shouldn't have secrets of any kind.

Last night my friend -- and the only man in Washington whose hair has gotten grayer than Obama's in the last five years -- Steve Hayes said that this was akin to a winning football team having its playbook fall into opponents' hands. I think this metaphor doesn't go far enough (and at this "news"letter if there's one thing we do it is stretch metaphors as far as they will go, like the gluteal tissue that makes up most of Nancy Pelosi's forehead). To me, it's more like Al Capone getting the budgets, deployments, personnel files, and health records of The Untouchables. Foreign spy agencies would have sacrificed blood and treasure for a few pages of this stuff; now the Russians and Chinese are bathing in the documents like a young Bill Clinton stumbling upon a trunk full of old Playboys.

Two points come to mind here. The Snowden-as-a-heroic-whistleblower storyline is now dead. Whatever limited truth there ever was to that spin, it's over. This has nothing to do with abuse of domestic surveillance and everything to do with harming the U.S.

Second, lots of people need to be fired. After Pearl Harbor, FDR wisely canned a bunch of generals for the simple reason that he needed fresh blood and accountability. This is the Pearl Harbor of "leaks," and heads should roll.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
WaTimes: Snowden treasure trove in enemy hands
« Reply #326 on: September 01, 2013, 07:17:15 AM »
Some might call this treason , , ,

NSA trove in foreign hands: 58,000 ‘highly classified’ documents, U.K. officials say
By Shaun Waterman
The Washington Times
Friday, August 30, 2013


British officials said Friday that the trove of documents taken by National Security Agency leaker Edward J. Snowden, which it seized earlier this week at Heathrow airport, contains more than 58,000 “highly classified UK intelligence documents,” which the government now assumes are in foreign hands.

Oliver Robbins, the deputy national security adviser for intelligence, security and resilience in the Cabinet Office, told a court in London that Mr. Snowden “indiscriminately appropriated material in bulk,” including personal information that would allow British intelligence staff, some serving overseas, to be identified.

SEE ALSO: NSA collected thousands of U.S. communications

The 58,000 documents were among 60 gigabytes of encrypted data seized from David Miranda during a nine hour detention under special terrorism powers Sunday.

Mr. Miranda is the boyfriend of Glen Greenwald, the journalist for Britain’s The Guardian newspaper who has been the conduit for most of Mr. Snowden’s leaks. He was bringing the data to Mr. Greenwald at their home in Brazil when he was detained while changing planes in London.

Friday’s court hearing was held to hear Mr. Miranda’s lawyers’ objections to the search of the material, but the judge ruled that the police could continue their efforts to decrypt the data.

The news, the first public comment by either the British or U.S. governments about the exact size of the trove that Mr. Snowden stole, suggests that his theft was of a much larger size than previously had been thought.

It is not known if the material recovered from Mr. Miranda represents the entirety of what Mr. Snowden took, which means his theft could even approach the scale of the cache that Bradley E. Manning passed to WikiLeaks — more than 750,000 classified documents — and at a much higher classification level.

Manning only had access to “secret” level documents, whereas those disclosed by Mr. Snowden have mostly been “top secret” or higher.

Britain has to assume the stolen data is now in the hands of foreign governments, since Mr. Snowden’s prior travel to Hong Kong and Russia, Mr. Robbins told the court, according to the Daily Telegraph.

He added that among other material taken from Mr. Miranda was a piece of paper with a password to one of the encrypted files written on it.

“The claimant and his associates have demonstrated very poor judgment in their security arrangements with respect to the material,” he said. This meant that it was a “real possibility” that “other, non-state actors,” might also have accessed it.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/snowden-trove-foreign-hands-includes-58000-highly-/#ixzz2deO4CFsL


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 1-5 of flagged applicants
« Reply #328 on: September 04, 2013, 10:10:19 AM »

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #329 on: September 13, 2013, 06:06:21 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #330 on: September 13, 2013, 08:49:40 PM »
Indeed.  I thought he wanted to bitch slap Colbert at a few spots.  I respect that he did not flinch where others would have.  Too bad there wasn't time for a more extended conversation.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
POYH: FISA judge calls for disclosure of court's opinions
« Reply #331 on: September 14, 2013, 10:25:10 AM »
Judge Urges U.S. to Consider Releasing N.S.A. Data on Calls
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: September 13, 2013


A judge on the nation’s intelligence court directed the government on Friday to review for possible public release the court’s classified opinions on the National Security Agency’s practice of collecting logs of Americans’ phone calls.


Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued the opinion in a response to a motion filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, saying such a move would add to “an informed debate” about privacy and might even improve the reputation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on which he sits.

The ruling was the latest development to show the seismic impact of the disclosures by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, on the secrecy that has surrounded both the agency and the court. It came a day after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., said in a speech that Mr. Snowden’s leak of secret documents had set off a “needed” debate.

Judge Saylor of Boston, one of the 11 federal judges who take turns sitting on the court operated under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, said in his ruling that the publication in June of a court order leaked by Mr. Snowden regarding the phone logs had prompted the government to release a series of related documents and “engendered considerable public interest and debate.”

Among the documents voluntarily made public by the Obama administration since then are two FISA court rulings from 2009 and 2011 that were highly critical of the N.S.A., which the judges said had not only violated the agency’s own rules and the law, but had repeatedly misled them.

Those disclosures ran counter to a longstanding assertion by the court’s critics that it acts as a rubber stamp for the N.S.A. and the F.B.I., since statistics show that it has rarely turned down a request for a government eavesdropping warrant.

Judge Saylor seemed to applaud the fuller picture of the court’s actions from the disclosures to date, saying of the possibility of the release of more declassified rulings that “publication would also assure citizens of the integrity of this court’s proceedings.”

The court was responding to the A.C.L.U.’s request for public release of rulings related to the N.S.A.’s collection of the so-called metadata of virtually all phone calls in the United States — phone numbers, time and duration of calls, but not their content. The collection takes place under a provision of the Patriot Act that allows the government to gather “business records” if they are relevant to a terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

Though the intelligence court has continued to approve orders to the telephone companies to turn over the call logs, members of Congress — including Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a Republican and an author of the Patriot Act, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee — have said the N.S.A.’s collection goes too far.

Alex Abdo, a staff lawyer with the A.C.L.U.’s national security project, said the ruling showed that the court “has recognized the importance of transparency to the ongoing public debate about the N.S.A.’s spying.” Mr. Abdo added, “For too long, the N.S.A.’s sweeping surveillance of Americans has been shrouded in unjustified secrecy.”

Before Mr. Snowden began his release of documents in June, intelligence officials insisted that any public discussion of N.S.A. programs or the secret court rulings governing them would pose a danger to national security. But the strong public and Congressional response to many of the disclosures has forced the spy agency to shift its stance, and President Obama has directed it to make public as much as possible about its operations and rules.

In response, Mr. Clapper’s office has created a new Web page to make public documents, statements by officials and other explanatory material.

On Thursday, in a talk to intelligence contractors, Mr. Clapper said he thought Mr. Snowden’s leaks had started a valuable discussion. “It’s clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen,” he said, according to The Los Angeles Times. “If there’s a good side to this, maybe that’s it.”

But he denounced Mr. Snowden’s leaks, saying they had damaged national security. “Unfortunately, there is more to come,” he said, referring to the fact that news reports have covered only a small fraction of the tens of thousands of documents Mr. Snowden took.

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #332 on: September 25, 2013, 02:47:05 PM »
This comes to me as recommended reading:

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Nightwatch.aspx




bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #336 on: October 02, 2013, 07:03:11 PM »

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/david-headley/

This is long, but is worth it.

Summary
According to widespread rumors in the United States, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence had a hand in the Dec. 30, 2009, attack in Khost, Afghanistan, which killed several CIA agents. While luck played a definite role in the attack, the skill in preparing the double agent who detonated the suicide bomb used in the attack has lead some to see a state role. Such a role is unlikely, however, as Pakistan has little to gain by enraging the United States. Even so, the rumors alone will harm U.S.-Pakistani relations, perhaps giving the Taliban some breathing room.

Analysis
Speculation is rife in the United States about the possible role played by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, Pakistan’s foreign intelligence service, in the Dec. 30, 2009, suicide attack on Forward Operating Base Chapman in eastern Afghanistan that killed multiple CIA agents. Much of this discussion traces back to a report citing unnamed U.S. and Afghan government sources as saying a chemical analysis of explosive residue suggesting the use of military-grade equipment points to ISI involvement in the incident.

This is a faulty basis to establish an ISI link, as the Pakistani Taliban have used military-grade explosives in numerous attacks against the Pakistani security establishment since late 2006. Still, rumors alone of ISI involvement will suffice to harm U.S.-Pakistani relations, which will serve the jihadists’ ends quite nicely.

To a large extent, chance aided the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in carrying out the attack. Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi’s arrival gave the group the opportunity to carry out an attack at a heavily fortified facility belonging to the world’s most powerful intelligence organization. That said, the preparation of the double agent for the attack showed definite skill. While it has shown a great degree of skill in pulling off attacks against major army, intelligence and other security installations in Pakistan, the TTP previously has not been seen as being capable of handling a foreign double agent for a complex operation outside Pakistan.

In this incident, the TTP managed to conceal al-Balawi’s true activities while in Pakistan. Admittedly, keeping close track of al-Balawi in Pakistan would have been a challenge to the CIA due to the agency’s fairly weak humint capabilities there, and because his jihadist hosts would have been extremely cautious about using communications devices that would show up on sigint monitoring. And while remaining below the radar while in jihadist country in the Pakistani northwest is one thing, circumventing all CIA countermeasures is quite another — and is something previously thought beyond the TTP’s known capabilities. Such sophistication rises to the level of the skills held by a national-level intelligence organization with tremendous resources and experience at this kind of tradecraft.

However, even this does not mean the ISI was involved in the attack.

The ISI falls under the control of the Pakistani army and the government, and the Pakistani state has no interest in carrying out actions against the United States, as this could seriously threaten Pakistani national interests. Also, it is clear that the ISI is at war with the TTP. For its part, the main Pakistani Taliban rebel group has specifically declared war on the ISI, leveling three key ISI facilities in the last eight months. It is therefore most unlikely this could have been an officially sanctioned Pakistani operation.

The possibility that jihadist sympathizers in the lower ranks of the Pakistani intelligence complex may have offered their services to the TTP cannot be ruled out, however. Given its history of dealing with Islamist nonstate proxies, the Pakistani intelligence apparatus is penetrated by the jihadists, which partially explains the ability of the TTP to mount a ferocious insurgency against the state.

Even though there is no clear smoking gun pointing at the ISI, rumors of its involvement alone will harm the already-fragile U.S.-Pakistani relationship. Concerns similar to those in the aftermath of the November 2008 Mumbai attack — that the situation in Pakistan has reached a point where the state no longer has control over its own security apparatus and now represents an intolerable threat to U.S. national security — will emerge again.

While the situation in Islamabad might not be dire, a U.S.-Pakistani and Indian-Pakistani breakdown is exactly what that the jihadists want so they can survive the U.S. and Pakistani offensives they currently face.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
AQ suspect held on Navy ship
« Reply #337 on: October 06, 2013, 10:06:33 PM »
U.S. Said to Hold Qaeda Suspect on Navy Ship

The accused operative for Al Qaeda seized by United States commandos in Libya over the weekend is being interrogated while in military custody on a Navy ship in the Mediterranean Sea, officials said. He is expected eventually to be sent to New York for criminal prosecution.
The fugitive, known as Abu Anas al-Libi, is seen as a potential intelligence gold mine, possessing perhaps two decades of information about Al Qaeda, from its early days under Osama bin Laden in Sudan to its more scattered elements today.
Abu Anas is being held aboard the U.S.S. San Antonio, a vessel brought in specifically for this mission, officials said.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/world/africa/a-terrorism-suspect-long-known-to-prosecutors.html?emc=edit_na_20131006




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #340 on: October 17, 2013, 10:52:17 AM »
see my entry in the FUBAR thread for a different entry on the same thing.  At any rate, Holy Excrement indeed.   :cry: :x :x

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Merkel of Germany and Braille of Brazil want more privacy than US citizens
« Reply #342 on: October 26, 2013, 05:58:40 AM »
Woof All:

I'd like to toss out for conversation this matter of our listening in to the private phone calls of the leaders of allies such as Germany and neutral countries such as Brazil.

Thanks to the traitor Snowden, our abilities in this area are now known.  Understandably these leaders are upset, , , , perhaps because we do it better than everyone else and perhaps for the same reasons that we do not like it when the NSA is listening in on us.  Understandably their populations are upset too.

What to do?  What to say?

I gather Merkel is asking for the UN to declare a code of behavior or something  :roll:  I'm sure the Chinese will obey , , ,


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #344 on: October 28, 2013, 07:09:32 PM »
Obama doesn't know about the IRS.  Obama knew nothing of Benghazi.  Obama knows nothing of the health care website mess.  Obama knows nothing of many to lose their insurance or not being able to keep their plans.

Obama knows nothing of NSA spying on Allies. 

The circle to protect this guy (and Hillary) is never ending.

Once a liar - always a liar.  That is the problem.  Thanks to Bill Clinton it has turned into a disgusting art form.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #345 on: October 28, 2013, 08:38:36 PM »
Does Obama know he's president ?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72250
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #346 on: October 29, 2013, 06:32:39 AM »
Something that caught my attention was the reminder that Merkel's predecessor Schroeder was in bed with Putin and the Russians, both while in office and after.  Tapping his phone would have been a good thing.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #347 on: October 29, 2013, 06:56:08 AM »
Something that caught my attention was the reminder that Merkel's predecessor Schroeder was in bed with Putin and the Russians, both while in office and after.  Tapping his phone would have been a good thing.

This is why all nations with the ability to do so do such things.

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
The Committee will come to order.

I’d like to welcome our first panel today:  Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, National Security Agency Director General Keith Alexander, and Deputy Director of the NSA Chris Inglis.

Following the first panel, we will move immediately into the second panel of non-government experts who are all very knowledgeable on FISA and privacy issues.
Today’s hearing will provide an open forum to discuss potential amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and possible changes to the way FISA applications are handled by the Department of Justice and the NSA.  I hope that all of our witnesses will give clear answers about how proposals under consideration in Congress would affect the NSA’s ability to stop terrorist attacks before they occur.  

As a starting point, we first need to consider why America collects foreign intelligence.  The United States began collecting foreign intelligence even before we were a nation, when George Washington sent Nathan Hale covertly into New York to try to understand what British plans were during the Revolutionary War.  

In 1929, the Secretary of State shut down the State Department's cryptanalytic office saying, "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail."   The world was a dangerous place back then, with growing and aggressive military threats from Japan and Germany, both bent on world domination.  Those threats eventually dragged us into a world war that killed millions.   We didn’t have the luxury of turning off intelligence capabilities as threats were growing back then, and we can’t afford to do so today.

Today, we gather foreign intelligence to help understand the plans and intentions of our adversaries, such as North Korea and Iran.  We collect foreign intelligence to learn about terrorist plots before they happen, as well as to learn about rogue nations developing the most dangerous weapons.

Every nation collects foreign intelligence.  That is not unique to the United States.  What is unique to the United States is our level of oversight, our commitment to privacy protections, and our checks and balances on intelligence collection.  China does not ask a FISA court for a warrant to listen to a phone call on their state-owned and censored network.  The Russian Duma does not conduct oversight on the FSB.  But America has those checks; America has those balances.  That is why we should be proud of the manner in which America collects intelligence.

The world is more connected today than ever before. This allows terrorists and spies to hide in civilian populations all over the world.  They use the Internet and telephone networks of our enemies and our allies.  They are just as likely to be found in terrorist safe havens as in allied nations overseas.

We cannot protect only our homeland.  Americans live all over the world and our businesses set up shop all over the world.  We have embassies in more than 150 countries; we have military bases in dozens of countries to protect our interests and allies; we bring stability to chaotic areas; and we help secure the global economy.  That is why collecting foreign intelligence is so important.

In July during floor debate, I committed to working with other Members to bring increased transparency and additional privacy protections to NSA’s counterterrorism programs.  

Our challenge is to build confidence and transparency while keeping our intelligence services agile and effective against our adversaries.  

One change we are considering would require the Attorney General or his designee to make the reasonable, articulable suspicion (or “RAS”) determination that a particular phone number is related to a terrorist and may be used to search the bulk telephone records data.  This process would move the RAS determination outside of the NSA, and is similar to the way an FBI investigator works with an Assistant United States Attorney when trying to find the person responsible for a crime.

We are also looking at providing more transparency into FISA Court orders whenever possible.  Reforms to the statute could include requiring more court orders to be declassified or publicly released in redacted form.

Additional transparency into the process may also be helpful.  For example, we could put into statute the process and standards for how information incidentally collected about U.S. persons who are not the targets of our programs is handled and require more public reporting on the number of times that happens.  

The recent debate over NSA programs often misses the fact that the 215 and 702 collection programs are conducted wholly within the bounds of the law and are approved by the FISA Court.  More transparency can help share that outstanding track record with the American people.

Some proposals pending before Congress, however, would effectively gut the operational usefulness of programs that are necessary to protect America’s national security.
For example, ending bulk collection under the business records provision would take away a vital tool for the FBI to find connections between terrorists operating in the United States.  We can’t ask the FBI to find terrorists plotting an attack and then not provide them with the information they need.  If we didn’t have the bulk phone records collection back in 2009, we may not have known there was a plot to attack the New York Subway system until bombs went off on the subway platforms.  
In the words of the 9/11 Commission Report, before 2001, narrow-minded legal interpretations “blocked the arteries of information sharing” between the intelligence community and law enforcement.    We cannot go back to a pre-9/11 mindset and risk failing to “connect the dots” again.  

I look forward to having a frank discussion about your perspectives on potential changes to FISA and how those changes could impact our ability to disrupt terrorist plots before they happen.  

Before turning the floor over to our witnesses, I recognize the Ranking Member for any opening comments he would like to make.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 02:09:12 PM by Crafty_Dog »