NSA Violates Court Rule re Mass Surveillance of Phone Records ... & Gets Replacement Snooping Program

POSITIVE SPIN TITLE I'd have chosen: NSA Violates Court Rule re Mass Surveillance of Phone Records ... & Gets Replacement Snooping Program ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- NSA Used Phone Records Program to Seek Iran Operatives By CHARLIE SAVAGEAUG. 12, 2015 WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency has used its bulk domestic phone records program to search for operatives from the government of Iran and “associated terrorist organizations” — not just Al Qaeda and its allies — according to a document obtained by The New York Times. The document also shows that a February 2010 order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for the program listed AT&T and Sprint as involved in it. A leaked 2013 court order for the program was addressed only to a Verizon subsidiary. The inclusion of Iran and allied terrorist groups — presumably the Shiite group Hezbollah — and the confirmation of the names of other participating companies add new details to public understanding of the once-secret program. The Bush administration created the program to try to find hidden terrorist cells on domestic soil after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and government officials have justified it by using Al Qaeda as an example. N.S.A. Inspector General’s Reports About Bulk Phone Records Program Are Released  AUG. 12, 2015 The disclosure of the new details comes at a time of debates over a proposed agreement to drop sanctions against Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program, and about N.S.A. surveillance and the role of American communications companies. In June, Congress enacted a law that will ban the systematic collection of domestic phone records after November, and create a replacement program for analyzing links between callers in search of associates of terrorism suspects without the government’s keeping the bulk data. The document disclosing new information about the program is an August 2010 letter from the Justice Department to Judge John Bates, then the presiding judge of the intelligence court. It was included in about 350 pages of N.S.A. inspector general reports about the program the government provided to The Times late on Tuesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act suit. The letter, which alerted Judge Bates to an incident in which a court-imposed rule for the program had been violated, contained information the government usually redacts when declassifying such documents: the full name of the intelligence court order in place for the program at the time, which included the listing of Iran and the names of the companies. The release of the uncensored version of the letter was apparently a mistake. The N.S.A. did not respond to a request for comment. President George W. Bush originally directed the N.S.A. to begin systematically collecting Americans’ calling records in bulk based on a unilateral assertion of executive power. In 2006, the Justice Department persuaded the intelligence court to bless the program. It began issuing orders to phone companies to turn over their customers’ calling records. Its orders were based on a secret interpretation of a provision of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, known as Section 215, which permits the F.B.I. to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to a national security investigation. The theory, accepted by the intelligence court but rejected in a recent appeals court ruling, is that everyone’s records are relevant to investigations hunting for terrorists because analyzing indirect links between callers can, in theory, reveal hidden relationships and sleeper cells. After praising the program as crucial to preventing terrorist attacks, intelligence agency officials now say that it has never thwarted one. But the program’s proponents argue that it is still a useful investigative tool. The program became public in June 2013 after Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, disclosed a trove of the agency’s classified documents. The first of those published was the 2013 intelligence court order to a Verizon subsidiary requiring it to turn over all its customers’ calling records. Although the Obama administration declassified the existence of the bulk phone records program, it has declined to confirm which other phone companies participated in it and which groups it could be used to search for. The letter does not make clear how often the N.S.A. has used the program to search for Iran or Iranian-linked terrorist organizations. It also says nothing further about the companies listed in the case name. There has been wide speculation that AT&T, which maintains a large database of calling records, was a participant in the program. And last year, when the government declassified documents about an aborted challenge to the program by a phone company in late 2009, it redacted the firm’s name, but officials said it was Sprint. The Justice Department letter confirms that both of those companies have been participants. But the document also contained a surprise. In addition to listing subsidiaries of Verizon Communications, the document lists Verizon Wireless, which was then a partnership with the British firm Vodafone. The inclusion of Verizon Wireless was striking. In June 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile had not been part of the classified program because of their foreign ownership stakes. In 2014, The Journal, The Washington Post and The Times each reported, citing intelligence officials, that for technical reasons, the program consisted mostly of landline phone records. However, it is not clear whether the inclusion of Verizon Wireless in the name of the court order means it was turning over customer records after all. Ed McFadden, a Verizon spokesman, said he was not permitted to say whether that was the case. But he said that as a general matter, it has been the government’s practice to use broad language covering all of Verizon’s entities in headings of such court orders because it has a complex corporate structure, regardless of whether any specific part was required to provide information under that order. Most of the inspector general reports, unlike the letter, contained redactions. They showed that the inspector general in 2006, shortly after the pre-existing program came under the intelligence court’s rules, called for greater procedural safeguards to make sure that the new rules were followed. There were no reports included in the documents from 2007 to 2009, when it came to light internally that the N.S.A. had been accessing the call records in a way that systematically violated the court’s rules. In late 2009, the intelligence court stopped letting the N.S.A. access the bulk data for operational purposes while it built a new system and tested it. There were many reports from 2010 and 2011, when the court ordered the inspector general to conduct a series of audits. One document also reveals a new nugget that fills in a timeline about surveillance: a key date for a companion N.S.A. program that collected records about Americans’ emails and other Internet communications in bulk. The N.S.A. ended that program in 2011 and declassified its existence after the Snowden disclosures. In 2009, the N.S.A. realized that there were problems with the Internet records program as well and turned it off. It then later obtained Judge Bates’s permission to turn it back on and expand it. When the government declassified his ruling permitting the program to resume, the date was redacted. The report says it happened in July 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/nsa-used-phone-records-program-to-seek-iran-operatives.html?_r=0 ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Either I've gone completely brain dead, or this article is hard to follow. Never mind what they used the mass surveillance of telephone records for:  the fact is they've violated intelligence court ordered terms.  Bulk telephone surveillance has also supposedly been shelved, as it's not constitutional. Mass surveillance was a 2001 / 9-11 power grab, before being sanctioned by the US intelligence court in 2006. Now there’s a post Snowden show of dropping the mass telephone surveillance (scheduled November), but the intelligence court gives NSA a 'snoophole':  analysis of 'associates' of 'terrorist' groups - which can be anyone, if one is creative in terms of definitions etc. That sounds a lot better than bulk collection of phone data ... but it can readily be abused.  Also, does anyone really believe that a government which spies on entire overseas countries, corporations, world leaders and US allies, is going to give up bulk collection of its own citizen's phone records, just like that?  lol  No way.  It's business as usual. The bulk collection of telephone data took place pre Snowden and was subsequently been scrapped for constitution reasons, as I understand. Bulk collection took place even though: officials say that it has never thwarted a terrorist attack However, the program’s: proponents continue to argue that it is still a useful investigative tool Nobody likes to give up that kind of power.  Only reason they are making out like they are dropping mass phone surveillance is they've been exposed by Snowden.  The issue isn't if the tool is 'useful' as an investigative tool - such tools are. The real issue is, violation of privacy on a mass scale and imposition of state power over civil liberties - as well as the issue of breaching the court limits imposed on this practice. Looks like costs (to free society) outweigh the benefits. Noticed Verizon 'not permitted to say' ... hmmm, I'd take that as a 'yes'. lol The claim is that overseas customers are not affected by the program: 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile had not been part of the classified program because of their foreign ownership stakes. document lists Verizon Wireless, which was then a partnership with the British firm Vodafone. Since when has the US been concerned about overseas customers?  NSA spies on entire countries. Some key bits of info: [2001?] George W. Bush originally directed the NSA to collect bulk telephone records on basis of a unilateral assertion of executive power 2006 - DOJ - persuaded the intelligence court to bless the bulk telephone surveillance program 2006 - DOJ - starts issuing orders to phone companies to turn over customers’ calling records.  2006 intelligence court orders were based on a secret interpretation of Section 215 USA Patriot Act (s.215)  lets FBI obtain business records deemed “relevant” to a national security investigation Give with one hand & take with the other: 2015, June - intelligence court bans BULK collection of domestic phone records after November.  intel court OKs replacement program for analysing links re callers  / purpose of tracking associates of terrorism suspects (which can be *anyone* government designates, I guess, lol) So the Bush administration exercises presidential powers (state of emergency or something, probably) in response to the events of 9/11, in order to extend powers of intelligence agencies, enabling mass collection of telephone records (2001?). And then the Justice Dept. gets the Intel Court to OK this mass collection of phone records in 2006 (which probably wasn't hard to swing).  The Intelligence Court does so, by SECRET INTERPRETATION.  Secret?  Well, that's strange.  Or maybe not.  The 'need' for secrecy is always used as leverage to get things through that otherwise wouldn't be accepted by the community. FBI got an extension of powers at the same time: FBI gets to pull business records. NSA violates intelligence court imposed limits. NSA - gets to run a replacement program.  lol Not sure what to think, apart from:  there's a lot of power that rests in state hands. ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------  [ Pretty sure I won't remember much of this, despite the droning, repetitive summary.   More of brain dead than usual today.  lol  ] ꕤ

MHI7 - Australian Sock Puppet Tony Abbott Resorts to Grandstanding & Hysteria

ABC News Go Article
ABC News, 47 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023

Australian PM Lashes out at Russia Over Shot Plane
CANBERRA, Australia — Jul 18, 2014, 3:54 AM ET
Associated Press

An angry Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Friday demanded an independent inquiry into the downing of a Malaysian jetliner and said Russia's response to what he called a crime was "deeply, deeply unsatisfactory."

Abbott criticized Russia's Ambassador to Australia Vladimir Morozov, who met earlier Friday with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

According to Abbott, the ambassador's initial response was to blame Ukraine for Thursday's downing of the Malaysia Airlines aircraft, which killed all 298 aboard, including 28 Australians.

The cause of Thursday's crash was not immediately clear but the area has seen heavy fighting recently between government troops and pro-Russia separatists, with the rebels bragging about shooting down two Ukrainian military jets in the region Wednesday, just a day earlier. U.S. intelligence officials believe the Malaysian plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.

Abbott told reporters that the idea that Russia can somehow say that none of this has anything to do with them because it happened in Ukrainian airspace "frankly does not stand up to any serious scrutiny." [He's a sock puppet.]

"The initial response of the Russian ambassador was to blame Ukraine for this and I have to say that is deeply, deeply unsatisfactory," he said. "I want to say to the Australian people that as far as I am concerned, when you have a situation where Russian-backed rebels appear to have killed Australians using it may well turn out to be Russian-supplied heavy weaponry, Australia takes a very dim view indeed and we want the fullest possible investigation."

["I have to say" ... LOL ... says it all.

Let's grandstand because Russia didn't provide the response that Tony Abbott's US buddies knew they wouldn't get?  Pathetic grandstanding.  Just for the sake of propaganda. 

Has he no respect for the dead?  Fancy using the deceased for political advantage!
  
As if he seriously expected anything other than the response he got from Russia.]

Abbott said "it's very important that we don't allow Russia to prevent an absolutely comprehensive investigation so that we can find out exactly what happened here." [No indication whatsoever that Russia would or *could* prevent an investigation -- so this is more grandstanding by Abbott, & more besmirching of Russia before the public.  Remember, there's got to be a 'bad guy'.]

"This is not an accident, it's a crime," he said. "And criminals should not be allowed to get away with what they've done. So there has to be a full, impartial international investigation and Russia should certainly not be allowed to stand in the way of that." [TONY ABBOT'S AN IDIOT.  HE WOULDN'T KNOW IF HIS ASS WAS ON FIRE.  HE'S A GRANDSTANDING SOCK PUPPET FOR THE U.S.]

Asked why he was using harsher language than other world leaders in relation to Russia's potential culpability, Abbott replied: "This aircraft didn't come down through accident — it was shot down. It did not crash, it was downed ... over territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels."  [TONY ABBOTT'S BEEN TALKING TO BIDEN.  LOL.]

SOURCE - ABC News - here.

 ------------------------------------------
Daily Mail Article (UK)

Exactly article as ABC Go. 

SOURCE - Daily Mail - here.

------------------------------------------ 

COMMENT

Maybe I'm a cynic, but it sure looks like Abbott is using this tragedy to get some mileage either for himself or for his US masters, grandstanding about demands for an independent enquiry and so on, when Obama has already announced that an independent enquiry will be conducted etc.

Daily Mail is also running the same story as the ABC Go (Disney owned) outlet, so I took a double-take for two reasons:

1)  I couldn't believe the about-face hysteria on Abbotts part.

2)  I discovered that the two whining Abbott articles were exact articles.

More on that later.

What's the bet if the flight in question was the US downed Iran Flight 655, Abbott wouldn't be milking the media opportunity to display his 'outraged' theatrical performance at the US.

Anyway, I'm not convinced by Abbott's melodramatics and I think he ought to carry himself with a bit more dignity than he's shown.