Showing posts with label Protect America Act (PAA). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protect America Act (PAA). Show all posts

Sunday, July 14, 2013

The Internet Is A Surveillance State



By Bruce Schneier

I'm going to start with three data points.
One: Some of the Chinese military hackers who were implicated in a broad set of attacks against the U.S. government and corporations were identified because they accessed Facebook from the same network infrastructure they used to carry out their attacks.
Two: Hector Monsegur, one of the leaders of the LulzSac hacker movement, was identified and arrested last year by the FBI. Although he practiced good computer security and used an anonymous relay service to protect his identity, he slipped up.
And three: Paula Broadwell, who had an affair with CIA director David Petraeus, similarly took extensive precautions to hide her identity. She never logged in to her anonymous e-mail service from her home network. Instead, she used hotel and other public networks when she e-mailed him. The FBI correlated hotel registration data from several different hotels -- and hers was the common name.
The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time. Google tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him;105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour period.
Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data about us. Unmasking Broadwell's identity involved correlating her Internet activity with her hotel stays. Everything we do now involves computers, and computers produce data as a natural by-product. Everything is now being saved and correlated, and many big-data companies make money by building up intimate profiles of our lives from a variety of sources.
Facebook, for example, correlates your online behavior with your purchasing habits offline. And there's more. There's location data from your cell phone, there's a record of your movements from closed-circuit TVs.
This is ubiquitous surveillance: All of us being watched, all the time, and that data being stored forever. This is what a surveillance state looks like, and it's efficient beyond the wildest dreams of George Orwell.
Sure, we can take measures to prevent this. We can limit what we search on Google from our iPhones, and instead use computer web browsers that allow us to delete cookies. We can use an alias on Facebook. We can turn our cell phones off and spend cash. But increasingly, none of it matters.
There are simply too many ways to be tracked. The Internet, e-mail, cell phones, web browsers,social networking sites, search engines: these have become necessities, and it's fanciful to expect people to simply refuse to use them just because they don't like the spying, especially since the full extent of such spying is deliberately hidden from us and there are few alternatives being marketed by companies that don't spy.
This isn't something the free market can fix. We consumers have no choice in the matter. All the major companies that provide us with Internet services are interested in tracking us. Visit a website and it will almost certainly know who you are; there are lots of ways to be trackedwithout cookies. Cellphone companies routinely undo the web's privacy protection. Oneexperiment at Carnegie Mellon took real-time videos of students on campus and was able to identify one-third of them by comparing their photos with publicly available tagged Facebook photos.
Maintaining privacy on the Internet is nearly impossible. If you forget even once to enable your protections, or click on the wrong link, or type the wrong thing, you've permanently attached your name to whatever anonymous service you're using. Monsegur slipped up once, and the FBI got him. If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no hope.
In today's world, governments and corporations are working together to keep things that way. Governments are happy to use the data corporations collect -- occasionally demanding that they collect more and save it longer -- to spy on us. And corporations are happy to buy data from governments. Together the powerful spy on the powerless, and they're not going to give up their positions of power, despite what the people want.
Fixing this requires strong government will, but they're just as punch-drunk on data as the corporations. Slap-on-the-wrist fines notwithstanding, no one is agitating for better privacy laws.
So, we're done. Welcome to a world where Google knows exactly what sort of porn you all like, and more about your interests than your spouse does. Welcome to a world where your cell phone company knows exactly where you are all the time. Welcome to the end of private conversations, because increasingly your conversations are conducted by e-mail, text, or social networking sites.
And welcome to a world where all of this, and everything else that you do or is done on a computer, is saved, correlated, studied, passed around from company to company without your knowledge or consent; and where the government accesses it at will without a warrant.
Welcome to an Internet without privacy, and we've ended up here with hardly a fight.

Monday, June 24, 2013

The Scandal Is Congress, Not The NSA



By Joshua Foust


A highly classified court order, leaked to the British paperThe Guardian and published on Wednesday, details a practice civil libertarians have long feared: indiscriminate surveillance of U.S. citizens. While on its surface, this order — which authorized the secretive National Security Agency to collect data on phone calls placed by Verizon customers for a period of three months — seems blatantly illegal, the reality is that Congress has been enabling and legalizing such surveillance for years.

The NSA was collecting so-called metadata:  information about call duration, location, and numbers, but not the identities of the callers or the content of their conversations. It was not wiretapping or eavesdropping as they’re traditionally known. This type of data is most useful for pattern analysis, which might be clarified to focus on an individual or a group of individuals, but to collect the content of their conversations the NSA would need another warrant.

The last time the NSA came under fire for its surveillance of Americans was in 2005, when the New York Times broke the story that the NSA had been collecting data on American citizens without a court order. Though Bush administration officials insist the collection was instrumental in breaking up terrorist plots, it also marked a new expansion of NSA authority – directly listening to American citizens.

Many viewed the NSA eavesdropping, enabled without much protest by US telecom companies, to be patently illegal. In order to protect telecoms from legal reprisals by angry customers, Congress passed, in 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a retroactive legal immunity protecting them from lawsuit.

Those changes to FISA had a rippling effect on the government’s ability to collect information on citizens. The NSA spied on Americans without even seeking a warrant, but instead of punishing them or the companies who assisted them, Congress instead gave them the go-ahead. In other words, they set a new norm that made it okay for an intelligence agency to seek data about Americans.

But 2008 wasn’t the first or even the last time Congress approved expansive surveillance authorities. In the original 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, the law permitted the government to collect data previously forbidden. During the Bush administration, scandals erupted over the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issuing secret interpretations of U.S. law – torture, extraordinary rendition, surveillance and drone strikes all are supported by secret legal arguments locked up in the White House.

Rather than challenging the administration’s authority to secretly interpret and enact laws, however, Congress instead twice authorized them to keep everything a secret. Last year, Ron Wyden, a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, tried to prohibit secret legal rulings. He got voted down. That same year Senator Jeff Merkley, also a Democrat, added his own amendment to the renewal of the 2008 wiretapping law. His amendment was voted down by a strong margin in both parties.

So this latest outcry over expansive surveillance is really the culmination of over a decade of lawmaking. All three branches of government – the court order was approved by a FISA court – and both parties, in two administrations, have agreed consistently to enable and protect the practice.

An action’s legality does not make it wise. While extensive data sets are useful for doing pattern analysis, there is a legitimate fear that the government is expanding the terms of its surveillance unreasonably. That is an important debate that should have happened publicly already – back in 2001, or 2008, or 2012. Neither Congress nor the White House helped its cause by doing everything so secretively.

But the place where this broad, legal surveillance can be reined in is Congress, since they passed the laws to begin with. Congress created this mess, and they should be the ones to clean it up.

Joshua Foust is a freelance journalist based in Washington, DC. He was previously a military intelligence analyst. His website is joshuafoust.com.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Inside America's Massive New Surveillance Centre



By JAMES BAMFORD

The spring air in the small, sand-dusted town has a soft haze to it, and green-grey sagebrush rustles in the breeze. Bluffdale sits in a valley in the shadow of Utah's Wasatch Range to the east and the Oquirrh Mountains to the west. It's the heart of Mormon country, where religious pioneers arrived more than 160 years ago. They came to escape the world, to understand the mysterious words sent from their god as revealed on golden plates, and to practise what has become known as "the principle", marriage to multiple wives.
But new pioneers have quietly begun moving into the area, secretive outsiders who keep to themselves. They too are focused on deciphering cryptic messages that only they have the power to understand. Just off Beef Hollow Road, less than 2km from brethren headquarters, thousands of hard-hatted builders are laying the groundwork for the newcomers' own temple and archive, a complex so large that it necessitated expanding the town's boundaries. Once built, it will be more than five times the size of the US Capitol building.
Rather than Bibles and worshippers, this temple will be filled with servers, computer intelligence experts and armed guards. These newcomers will be capturing, storing and analysing vast quantities of words and images hurtling through the world's telecommunications networks. In the town of Bluffdale, Big Love and Big Brother have become uneasy neighbours.
The blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the US National Security Agency (NSA). A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyse and store vast amounts of the world's communications from satellites and underground and undersea cables of international, foreign and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion (£1.25 billion) centre should be operational in September 2013. Stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including private emails, mobile phone calls and Google searches, as well as personal data trails -- travel itineraries, purchases and other digital "pocket litter". It is the realisation of the "total information awareness" programme created by the Bush administration -- which was killed by Congress in 2003 after an outcry over its potential for invading privacy.
But "this is more than just a data centre", says one senior intelligence official who until recently was involved with the programme. The mammoth Bluffdale centre will have another important and far more secret role. It is also critical, he says, for breaking codes, which is crucial because much of the data that the centre will handle -- financial information, business deals, foreign military and diplomatic secrets, legal documents, confidential personal communications -- will be heavily encrypted. According to another top official also involved, the NSA made a breakthrough several years ago in cryptanalysis, or breaking complex encryption systems used not only by governments around the world but also average computer users. The upshot, says this official, is that "everybody's a target; everybody with communication is a target."
For the NSA, with tens of billions of dollars in post- 9/11 budget awards, the cryptanalysis breakthrough came at a time of explosive growth in size and power. Established as an arm of the US Department of Defense (DoD) following Pearl Harbor, the NSA suffered a series of humiliations in the post- Cold War years. Caught off guard by the first World Trade Center bombing, the blowing up of US embassies in East Africa, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and 9/11, the agency's reason to exist was in question. In response, the NSA has quietly been reborn. And although there is little indication that its effectiveness has improved -- after all, it missed the attempted attacks by the underwear bomber on a flight to Detroit in 2009, and the car bomber in Times Square in 2010 -- there is no doubt that it has transformed itself into the largest, most covert and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created.
In the process -- and for the first time since Watergate -- the NSA has turned its surveillance apparatus on the US and its citizens. It has established listening posts throughout the nation to collect and sift through billions of emails and phone calls, whether they originate within the country or overseas. It has created a supercomputer to look for patterns and unscramble codes. Finally, the agency has begun building a place to store everything captured in its electronic net. And, it's all being done in secret.
Freezing fog blanketed Salt Lake City on the morning of ­January 6, 2011, mixing with heavy grey smog. At the city's international airport, many inbound flights were delayed or diverted and outbound jets were grounded. But among those making it through was a figure whose grey suit and tie made him almost blend into the background. He was tall and thin, with dark caterpillar eyebrows beneath a shock of matching hair. Accompanied by bodyguards, the man was NSA deputy director Chris Inglis, the agency's highest-ranking civilian who ran its worldwide day-to-day operations.
Inglis arrived in Bluffdale at the site of the future data centre, a flat, unpaved runway on a little-used part of Camp Williams, a National Guard training site. There, in a tent set up for the occasion, Inglis joined Harvey Davis, the agency's associate director for installations and logistics, and Utah senator Orrin Hatch, along with a few generals and politicians in a surreal ceremony. Standing in an odd wooden sandbox and holding gold-painted shovels, they jabbed awkwardly at the sand and thus officially broke ground on what the local media had dubbed "the spy centre". Hoping for some details on what was to be built, reporters turned to one of the guests, Lane Beattie of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce. Did he have any idea of the purpose behind the new facility? "Absolutely not," he said with a half laugh. "Nor do I want them spying on me."
Inglis simply engaged in double-talk, emphasising the least threatening aspect of the centre: "It's a state-of-the-art facility designed to support the intelligence community in its mission to, in turn, enable and protect the nation's cybersecurity." Cyber-security will certainly be among the areas focused on in Bluffdale -- what and how it is collected, and what is done with the material, are more important issues. Battling hackers makes for a nice cover -- who could be against it? Then the reporters turned to Hatch, who proudly described the centre as "a great tribute to Utah".
This was supposedly the official ground-breaking for the nation's largest cybersecurity project, yet no one from the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for protecting civilian networks from cyberattack, spoke at it. In fact, the official who'd originally introduced the data centre, at a press conference in Salt Lake City in October 2009, had nothing to do with cybersecurity. It was Glenn Gaffney, deputy director of national intelligence for collection, a career CIA man. As head of collection for the intelligence community, he managed the country's human and electronic spies.
Within days, the gold shovels would be gone and Inglis and the generals would be replaced by some 10,000 builders. The plans for the centre show an extensive security system: an elaborate $10 million (£6m) anti-terrorism protection programme, including a fence designed to stop a heavy vehicle travelling 80kph, closed-circuit cameras, a biometric identification system, a vehicle-inspection facility and a visitor-control centre. Inside, the facility will consist of four 2,300-square-metre halls filled with servers, complete with raised floor space for cables and storage. In addition, there will be more than 83,600 square metres for technical support and administration. The entire site will be self-sustaining, with fuel tanks large enough to power the backup generators for three days in an emergency, water storage with the capability of pumping 6.4 million litres of liquid per day, as well as a sewage system and air-conditioning system to keep all those servers cool.
Electricity will come from the centre's own substation built by Rocky Mountain Power to satisfy the 65-megawatt power demand. Such a mammoth amount of energy comes with a mammoth price tag -- about $40 million (£25 million) a year, according to one estimate.
Given the facility's scale and the fact that a terabyte of data can now be stored on a flash drive the size of your little finger, the amount of information that could be housed in Bluffdale is staggering. But so is the exponential growth in the amount of intelligence data being produced every day by the sensors of the intelligence agencies. As a result of this "expanding array of theatre airborne and other sensor networks", as a 2007 Department of Defense report puts it, the Pentagon is trying to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes (1024 bytes) of data. (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes -- so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.) It needs that capacity because, according to a report by Cisco, global internet traffic will quadruple from 2010 to 2015, reaching 966 exabytes per year. (A million exabytes equal a yottabyte.) Eric SchmidtGoogle's former CEO, once estimated that all human knowledge created from the dawn of man to 2003 totalled five exabytes. And the flow shows no sign of slowing. In 2011 more than two billion of the world's 6.9 billion people were connected to the internet. By 2015, market research firm IDC estimates, there will be 2.7 billion users. Thus, the NSA's need for a 93,000-square-metre data storehouse. Should the agency ever fill the Utah centre with a yottabyte of information, it would be equal to about 500 quintillion (500,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text.
The data stored in Bluffdale will go far beyond the world's billions of public web pages. The NSA is more interested in the invisible web, also known as the deep web or deepnet -- data beyond the reach of the public. This includes password-protected data, US and foreign government communications, and non-commercial file-sharing between trusted peers. "The deep web contains government reports, databases and other sources of information of high value to DoD and the intelligence community," according to a 2010 Defense Science Board report. "Tools are needed to find and index data in the deep web… Stealing the classified secrets of a potential adversary is where the [intelligence] community is most comfortable."
With its new Utah Data Center, the NSA will at last have the capability to store, and rummage through, all those stolen secrets. The question, of course, is how the agency defines who is, and who is not, "a potential adversary".
Before yottabytes of data can begin piling up inside the servers of the NSA's new centre, they must be collected. To achieve that more efficiently, the agency has installed secret electronic-monitoring rooms in major US telecom facilities. These are where the agency taps into the US communications networks, a practice that came to light during the Bush years but was never acknowledged by the agency. The broad outlines of the so-called warrantless-wiretapping programme have long been exposed -- how the NSA secretly and illegally bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was supposed to oversee and authorise highly targeted domestic eavesdropping; how the programme allowed monitoring of millions of American phone calls and email. In the wake of the programme's exposure, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which largely made the practices legal. Telecoms that had agreed to participate in the illegal activity were granted immunity from prosecution and lawsuits. What hasn't been revealed until now, however, was the size of this domestic spying programme.
For the first time, a former NSA official has gone on the record to describe the programme, codenamed Stellar Wind, in detail. William Binney was a senior crypto-mathematician responsible for automating the agency's worldwide listening network. A tall man with dark, determined eyes behind thick-rimmed glasses, the 68-year-old spent nearly four decades breaking codes and finding new ways to channel billions of private phone calls and email messages from around the world into the NSA's bulging databases. As chief and one of the two cofounders of the agency's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, Binney and his team designed much of the infrastructure that's still probably in use.
He explains that the agency could have installed its gear at the nation's cable landing stations -- the two dozen or so sites where fibre-optic cables come ashore. If it had, the NSA could have limited its eavesdropping to international communications, which at that time was all that was allowed under US law. Instead it put wiretapping rooms at key junctions throughout the country, thus gaining access to most of the domestic traffic. The network of intercept stations, or "switches", goes far beyond the room in an AT&T building in San Francisco exposed by a whistleblower in 2006. "I think there's ten to 20 of them," Binney says. "Not just San Francisco; they have them in the middle of the country and on the East Coast."
Listening in doesn't stop at the telecom switches. To capture satellite communications, the agency also monitors AT&T's powerful earth stations, satellite receivers in locations that include Roaring Creek and Salt Creek. Tucked away in rural Pennsylvania, Roaring Creek's three 32-metre dishes handle much of the country's communications to and from Europe and the Middle East. And on a remote stretch in Arbuckle, California, three similar dishes at the company's Salt Creek station service the Pacific Rim and Asia.
Binney left the NSA in late 2001, shortly after the agency launched its warrantless-wiretapping programme. "They violated the [US] Constitution setting it up," he says. "But they didn't care. They were going to do it, and they were going to crucify anyone who stood in the way. When they started violating the Constitution, I couldn't stay." Binney says Stellar Wind was larger than has been disclosed and included listening to domestic phone calls as well as inspecting domestic email. At the outset the programme recorded 320 million calls a day, he says -- about 73 to 80 per cent of the total volume of the agency's worldwide intercepts.
The haul only grew. According to Binney -- who has kept close contact with agency employees until a few years ago -- the taps in the secret rooms dotting the country are powered by software programs that conduct "deep packet inspection", examining internet traffic as it passes through the ten-gigabit-per-second cables at the speed of light.
The software, created by a company called Narus that's now part ofBoeing, is controlled from NSA headquarters at Fort Meade in Maryland and searches US sources for addresses, locations, countries and phone numbers, as well as watch-listed names, keywords and phrases in emails. Any communication that arouses suspicion, especially those to or from the million or so people on agency watch lists, is recorded and transmitted to the NSA. The scope expands from there, Binney says. Once a name is entered into the Narus database, all communications to and from that person are routed to the NSA's recorders. "If your number's in there? Routed and gets recorded." And when Bluffdale is completed, whatever is collected will be routed there.
According to Binney, one of the deepest secrets of the Stellar Wind programme -- again, never confirmed until now -- was that the NSA gained warrantless access to AT&T's domestic and international billing records. As of 2007, AT&T had more than 2.8 trillion records in a database at its Florham Park, New Jersey, complex. Verizon was also part of the programme. "That multiplies the call rate by at least a factor of five," Binney says. "So you're over a billion and a half calls a day." (Verizon and AT&T said they would not comment on matters of national security.)
After he left the NSA, Binney suggested a system for monitoring people's communications according to how closely they are connected to a target. The further away from the target -- say just an acquaintance of a friend of the target -- the less the surveillance. But the agency rejected the idea, and, given the massive new storage facility in Utah, Binney suspects that it now simply collects everything. He says: "They're storing everything they gather."
Once communications are stored, the datamining begins. "You can watch everybody all the time with datamining," Binney says. Everything a person does is charted on a graph, "financial transactions or travel or anything", he says. Thus the NSA is able to paint a detailed picture of someone's life. The NSA can alsoeavesdrop on phone calls directly and in real time. According to Adrienne Kinne, who worked before and after 9/11 as a voice interceptor at the NSA facility in Georgia, in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks "basically all rules were thrown out the window, and they would use any excuse to justify a waiver to spy on Americans". Even journalists calling home from overseas were included. "A lot of time you could tell they were calling their families," she says. "Intimate, personal conversations." Kinne found eavesdropping on innocent citizens distressing. "It's like finding somebody's diary," she says.
But there is reason for everyone to be distressed about the practice. Once the door is open for the government to spy on US citizens, there are temptations to abuse that power for political purposes, as when Richard Nixon eavesdropped on his political enemies during Watergate and ordered the NSA to spy on anti-war protesters. Those and other abuses prompted Congress to enact prohibitions in the mid-1970s against domestic spying.
Before he left the NSA, Binney tried to persuade officials to create a more targeted system that could be authorised by a court. At the time, the agency had 72 hours to obtain a legal warrant; Binney devised a method to computerise the system. But such a system would have required close co-ordination with the courts, and NSA officials weren't interested, Binney says. Asked how many communications -- "transactions", in NSA's lingo -- the agency has intercepted since 9/11, Binney estimates "between 15 and 20 trillion over 11 years".
Binney hoped that Barack Obama's new administration might be open to addressing constitutional concerns. He and another former senior NSA analyst, J Kirk Wiebe, tried to explain an automated warrant-approval system to the Department of Justice's inspector general. They were given the brush-off. "They said, oh, OK, we can't comment," Binney says. Sitting in a restaurant not far from NSA headquarters, the place where he spent nearly 40 years of his life, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together. "We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state," he says.
There is still one technology preventing untrammelled government access to private digital data: strong encryption. Anyone -- fromterrorists and weapons dealers to corporations, financial institutions and ordinary email senders -- can use it to seal their messages, plans, photos and documents in hardened data shells. For years, one of the hardest shells has been the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), one of several algorithms used by much of the world to encrypt data. Available in three different strengths -- 128 bits, 192 bits and 256 bits -- it's incorporated in most commercial email programs and web browsers and is considered so strong that the NSA has even approved its use for top-secret US government communications. Most experts say that a so-called brute-force computer attack on the algorithm -- trying one combination after another to unlock the encryption -- would likely take longer than the age of the universe. For a 128-bit cipher, the number of trial-and-error attempts would be 340 undecillion (1036).
Breaking into those complex mathematical shells like the AES is one of the key reasons for the construction going on in Bluffdale. That kind of cryptanalysis requires two major ingredients: super-fast computers to conduct brute-force attacks on encrypted messages and a massive number of those messages for the computers to analyse. The more messages from a given target, the more likely it is for the computers to detect telltale patterns, and Bluffdale will be able to hold a great many messages. "We questioned it one time," says another source, a senior intelligence manager who was also involved with the planning. "Why were we building this NSA facility? And, boy, they rolled out all the old guys -- the crypto guys." According to the official, these experts told then-director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, "You've got to build this thing because we just don't have the capability of doing the code-breaking." It was a candid admission. In the long war between the code breakers and the code makers -- the tens of thousands of cryptographers in the worldwide computer- security industry -- the code breakers were admitting defeat.
So the agency had one major ingredient -- a massive data-storage facility -- under way. Meanwhile, across the country in Tennessee, the US government was working in utmost secrecy on the other vital element: the most powerful computer the world has ever known.The plan was launched in 2004 as a modern-day Manhattan Project. Dubbed the High Productivity Computing Systems programme, its goal was to advance computer speed a thousandfold, creating a machine that could execute a quadrillion (1015) operations a second, known as a petaflop -- the computer equivalent of breaking the land speed record. And as with the Manhattan Project, the venue chosen for the supercomputing programme was the town of Oak Ridge in eastern Tennessee, a rural area where sharp ridges give way to low, scattered hills, and the southwestward-flowing Clinch River bends sharply to the southeast. About 40km from Knoxville, it is the "secret city" where uranium-235 was extracted for the first atomic bomb. A sign near the exit said: "What you see here, what you do here, what you hear here, when you leave here, let it stay here." Today, not far from where that sign stood, Oak Ridge is home to the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and it's engaged in a new secret war.
In 2004, as part of the supercomputing programme, the Department of Energy established its Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility for multiple agencies to join forces on the project. But in reality there would be two tracks, one unclassified, in which all of the scientific work would be public, and anothertop secret, in which the NSA could pursue its own computer covertly. "For our purposes, they had to create a separate facility," says a former senior NSA computer expert who worked on the project and is still associated with the agency. (He is one of three sources who described the programme.) It was an expensive undertaking.
Known as the Multiprogram Research Facility, or Building 5300, the $41 million, five-storey, 20,000m2 structure was built on a plot of land on the lab's East Campus and completed in 2006. Inside, 318 scientists, computer engineers and other staff work in secret on the cryptanalytic applications of high-speed computing and other classified projects. The centre was named in honour of George R Cotter, the NSA's now-retired chief scientist and head of its information technology programme. Not that you'd know it. "There's no sign on the door," says the ex-NSA computer expert.
At the DOE's unclassified centre at Oak Ridge the team had its Cray XT4 supercomputer upgraded to a warehouse-sized XT5. Named Jaguar for its speed, it clocked in at 1.75 petaflops and was the world's fastest computer in 2009.
Meanwhile, over in Building 5300, the NSA succeeded in building an even faster supercomputer. "They made a big breakthrough," says another former senior intelligence official, who helped oversee the programme.
The NSA's machine was probably similar to the unclassified Jaguar, but it was much faster out of the gate, modified specifically for cryptanalysis and targeted against one or more specificalgorithms, like the AES. They were moving from the R&D phase to actually attacking extremely difficult encryption systems.
The codebreaking effort was up and running.
The agency pulled the shade down on the project, says the former official. "Only the chairman, vice chairman and the two staff directors of each intelligence committee were told," he says. "They were thinking this was going to give them the ability to crack current public encryption."
In addition to giving the NSA access to a tremendous amount of Americans' personal data, such an advance would also open a window on a trove of foreign secrets. Whereas today most sensitive communications use the strongest encryption, much of the older data stored by the NSA, including a great deal of what will be transferred to Bluffdale once the centre is complete, is encrypted with more vulnerable ciphers. "Remember," says the former intelligence official, "a lot of foreign government stuff we've never been able to break is 128[-bit] or less. Break all that and you'll find out a lot more of what you didn't know -- stuff we've already stored -- so there's an enormous amount of information still in there."
That, he notes, is where the value of Bluffdale and its mountains of long-stored data will come in. What can't be broken today may be broken tomorrow. "Then you can see what they were saying in the past," he says. "By extrapolating the way they did business, it gives us an indication of how they may do things now." The danger, the former official says, is that it's not only foreign government information that is locked in weaker algorithms; it's also a great deal of personal domestic communications, such as Americans' email intercepted by the NSA in the past decade.
But first the supercomputer must break the encryption, and to do that, speed is everything. The faster the computer, the faster it can break codes. The Data Encryption Standard, the 56-bit predecessor to the AES, debuted in 1976 and lasted about 25 years. The AES made its first appearance in 2001 and is expected to remain strong and durable for at least a decade. But if the NSA has secretly built a computer that is considerably faster than machines in the unclassified arena, then the agency has a chance of breaking the AES in a much shorter time. And with Bluffdale in operation, the NSA will have the luxury of storing an ever-expanding archive of intercepts until that breakthrough comes along.
But despite its progress, the agency has not finished building at Oak Ridge, nor is it satisfied with breaking the petaflop barrier. Its next goal is to reach exaflop speed, one quintillion (1018) operations a second, and eventually zettaflop (1021) and yottaflop.
These goals have considerable support in Congress. Last November a bipartisan group of 24 senators sent a letter to President Obama urging him to approve continued funding through 2013 for the Department of Energy's exascale computing initiative (the NSA's budget requests are classified). They cited the necessity to keep up with and surpass China and Japan. "The race is on to develop exascale computing capabilities," the senators noted. By late 2011 the Jaguar (now with a peak speed of 2.33 petaflops) ranked third behind Japan's "K Computer", with 10.51 petaflops, and the Chinese Tianhe-1A system, with 2.57 petaflops.
But the real competition will take place in the classified realm. To secretly develop the new exaflop (or higher) machine by 2018, the NSA has proposed constructing two connecting buildings, totalling 24,100m2, near its current facility on the East Campus of Oak Ridge. Called the Multiprogram Computational Data Center, the buildings will be low and wide like giant warehouses, a design necessary for the dozens of computer cabinets that will compose an exaflop-scale machine, possibly arranged in a cluster to minimise the distance between circuits. According to a presentation delivered to DoE employees in 2009, it will be an "unassuming facility with limited view from roads", in keeping with the NSA secrecy. And it will have an extraordinary appetite for electricity, using about 200 megawatts, enough to power 200,000 homes. In the meantime Cray is working on the next step for the NSA, funded in part by a $250 million contract with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. It's a massively parallel supercomputer called Cascade, a prototype of which is due at the end of 2012. Its development will run alongside the unclassified effort for the DoE and other partner agencies. That project, due in 2013, will upgrade the JaguarXT5 into an XK6, codenamed Titan, upping its speed to ten to 20 petaflops.
Yottabytes and exaflops, septillions and undecillions -- the race for computing speed and data storage goes on. In his 1941 story The Library of Babel, Jorge Luis Borges imagined a collection of information where the entire world's knowledge is stored but barely a single word is understood. In Bluffdale the NSA is constructing a library on a scale that even Borges might not have contemplated. And to hear the masters of the agency tell it, it's only a matter of time until every word is illuminated.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

The NSA's PRISM Program: By The Numbers

National Intelligence Director James Clapper says PRISM is "entirely legal" thanks to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
National Intelligence Director James Clapper says PRISM is "entirely legal" thanks to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

By Harold Maass

T
he National Security Agency's program to mine electronic data from America's biggest internet companies is mind-boggling in scope. The top-secret effort — code-named PRISM — is reportedly aimed at cross-checking emails and other information exchanged by foreign targets to head off potential threats against the U.S. (Read our helpful primer on PRISM here.) Just how much of an intelligence goldmine is PRISM to analysts trying to foil terrorist plots, and how deeply did they delve into Americans' private information? Here, a look at PRISM's reach, by the numbers:

9
Internet companies whose servers the NSA allegedly tapped, according to documents leaked toThe Washington Post and The Guardian. The tech giants affected are reportedly Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple.
7
Companies on the list whose executives say they never knowingly gave the NSA access to their servers
98
Percentage of PRISM data that has been collected from Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft (which is currently running an ad campaign under the slogan "Your privacy is our priority")
51
Percent confidence PRISM searches are supposed to have of the targeted user's "foreignness,"to prevent snooping on American citizens abroad or anyone inside the U.S.

702
Section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, says makes PRISM "entirely legal"
6
Years the PRISM program was in operation before The Washington Post and The Guardian got their hands on a PowerPoint training presentation that was apparently leaked by a career intelligence officer concerned that PRISM is a gargantuan violation of privacy

41
PowerPoint slides on PRISM included in the presentation leaked to The Washington Post
77,000
Intelligence reports that have cited PRISM
1,477
Times PRISM data was cited in the President's Daily Brief last year, making it the most prolific source of intelligence information for President Obama's regular national security updates

1 in 7
Intelligence reports generated by the NSA that rely on data from PRISM, which the Post says makes the program the NSA's leading source of raw material

24,005
Reports based on PRISM in 2012 alone, suggesting significant growth in the use of the program. Intelligence officials say the program has helped them keep up with an exponential increase in communication among terrorism suspects using social media.

248
Percent growth in PRISM requests for Skype data in 2012

131
Percent increase in requests for Facebook information in the same year

63
Percent increase in requests for Google information in 2012
$20 million
Annual cost of the program

Monday, June 17, 2013

"A Massive Surveillance State"



Courtesy Of: Democracy Now
Host: Amy Goodman
Guest: Glenn Greenwald

The National Security Agency has obtained access to the central servers of nine major Internet companies — including Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo! and Facebook. The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the top-secret program, codenamed PRISM, after they obtained several slides from a 41-page training presentation for senior intelligence analysts. It explains how PRISM allows them to access emails, documents, audio and video chats, photographs, documents and connection logs. "Hundreds of millions of Americans, and hundreds of millions – in fact, billions of people around the world – essentially rely on the Internet exclusively to communicate with one another," Greenwald says. "Very few people use landline phones for much of anything. So when you talk about things like online chat and social media messages and emails, what you’re really talking about is the full extent of human communication." This comes after Greenwald revealed Wednesday in another story that the NSA has been collecting the phone records of millions of Verizon customers. 

"They want to make sure that every single time human beings interact with one another … that they can watch it, and they can store it, and they can access it at any time."

Transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: We begin with news that the National Security Agency has obtained access to the central servers of nine major Internet companies, including Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo! and Facebook. The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the top secret program on Thursday, codenamed PRISM, after they obtained several slides from a 41-page training presentation for senior intelligence analysts. It explains how PRISM allows them to access emails, documents, audio and video chats, photographs, documents and connection logs that allow them to track a person or trace their connections to others. 

One slide lists the companies by name and the date when each provider began participating over the past six years. But an Apple spokesperson said it had "never heard" of PRISM and added, quote, "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers and any agency requesting customer data must get a court order," they said. Other companies had similar responses.

Well, for more, we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald, columnist, attorney, and blogger for The Guardian, where he broke his story in—that was headlined "NSA Taps in to Internet Giants’ Systems to Mine User Data, Secret Files Reveal." This comes after he revealed Wednesday in another exclusive story that the "NSA has been collecting the phone records of millions of Verizon customers." According to a new report inThe Wall Street Journal, the scope of the NSA phone monitoring includes customers of all three major phone networks—Verizon, AT&T and Sprint—as well as records from Internet service providers and purchase information from credit card providers. Glenn Greenwald is also author of With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. He’s joining us now via Democracy—video stream.

Glenn, welcome back to Democracy Now! Lay out this latest exclusive that you have just reported in The Guardian.

GLENN GREENWALD: There are top-secret NSA documents that very excitingly describe—excitedly describe, boast about even, how they have created this new program called the PRISM program that actually has been in existence since 2007, that enables them direct access into the servers of all of the major Internet companies which people around the world, hundreds of millions, use to communicate with one another. You mentioned all of those—all those names. And what makes it so extraordinary is that in 2008 the Congress enacted a new law that essentially said that except for conversations involving American citizens talking to one another on U.S. soil, the NSA no longer needs a warrant to grab, eavesdrop on, intercept whatever communications they want. And at the time, when those of us who said that the NSA would be able to obtain whatever they want and abuse that power, the argument was made, "Oh, no, don’t worry. There’s a great check on this. 

They have to go to the phone companies and go to the Internet companies and ask for whatever it is they want. And that will be a check." And what this program allows is for them, either because the companies have given over access to their servers, as the NSA claims, or apparently the NSA has simply seized it, as the companies now claim—the NSA is able to go in—anyone at a monitor in an NSA facility can go in at any time and either read messages that are stored in Facebook or in real time surveil conversations and chats that take place on Skype and Gmail and all other forms of communication. It’s an incredibly invasive system of surveillance worldwide that has zero checks of any kind.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, there is a chart prepared by the NSA in the top-secret document you obtained that shows the breadth of the data it’s able to obtain—email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, Skype chats, file transfers, social networking details. Talk about what this chart reveals.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think the crucial thing to realize is that hundreds of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions—in fact, billions of people around the world essentially rely on the Internet exclusively to communicate with one another. Very few people use landline phones for much of anything. So when you talk about things like online chats and social media messages and emails, what you’re really talking about is the full extent of human communication. And what the objective of the National Security Agency is, as the stories that we’ve revealed thus far demonstrate and as the stories we’re about to reveal into the future will continue to demonstrate—the objective of the NSA and the U.S. government is nothing less than destroying all remnants of privacy. They want to make sure that every single time human beings interact with one another, things that we say to one another, things we do with one another, places we go, the behavior in which we engage, that they know about it, that they can watch it, and they can store it, and they can access it at any time. And that’s what this program is about. And they’re very explicit about the fact that since most communications are now coming through these Internet companies, it is vital, in their eyes, for them to have full and unfettered access to it. And they do.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, as you reported, the PRISM program—not to be confused with prison, the PRISM program—is run with the assistance of the companies that participate, including Facebook and Apple, but all of those who responded to a Guardian request for comment denied knowledge of any of the program. This is what Google said, quote: "We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege [that] we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. Well, first of all, after our story was published, and The Washington Post published more or less simultaneously a similar story, several news outlets, including NBC News, confirmed with government officials that they in fact have exactly the access to the data that we describe. The director of national intelligence confirmed to The New York Times, by name, that the program we identify and the capabilities that we described actually exist. So, you have a situation where somebody seems to be lying. The NSA claims that these companies voluntarily allow them the access; the companies say that they never did.

This is exactly the kind of debate that we ought to have out in the open. What exactly is the government doing in how it spies on us and how it reads our emails and how it intercepts our chats? Let’s have that discussion out in the open. To the extent that these companies and the NSAhave a conflict and can’t get their story straight, let them have that conflict resolved in front of us. And then we, as citizens, instead of having this massive surveillance apparatus built completely secretly and in the dark without us knowing anything that’s going on, we can then be informed about what kinds of surveillance the government is engaged in and have a reasoned debate about whether that’s the kind of world in which we want to live.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, on Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein told reporters in the Senate gallery that the government’s top-secret court order to obtain phone records on millions of Americans is, quote, "lawful."
SENDIANNE FEINSTEIN: As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the FISA court under the business records section of the PATRIOT Act, therefore it is lawful.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator Dianne Feinstein. Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, the fact that something is lawful doesn’t mean that it isn’t dangerous or tyrannical or wrong. You can enact laws that endorse tyrannical behavior. And there’s no question, if you look at what the government has done, from the PATRIOTAct, the Protect America Act, the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act, that’s exactly what the war on terror has been about.

But I would just defer to two senators who are her colleagues, who are named Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. They have—are good Democrats. They have spent two years now running around trying to get people to listen to them as they’ve been saying, "Look, what the Obama administration is doing in interpreting the PATRIOT Act is so radical and so distorted and warped that Americans will be stunned to learn" — that’s their words — "what is being done in the name of these legal theories, these secret legal theories, in terms of the powers the Obama administration has claimed for itself in how it can spy on Americans."

When the PATRIOT Act was enacted—and you can go back and look at the debates, as I’ve done this week—nobody thought, even opponents of the PATRIOT Act, that it would ever be used to enable the government to gather up everybody’s telephone records and communication records without regard to whether they’ve done anything wrong. The idea of the PATRIOT Act was that when the government suspects somebody of being involved in terrorism or serious crimes, the standard of proof is lowered for them to be able to get these documents. But the idea that the PATRIOT Act enables bulk collection, mass collection of the records of hundreds of millions of Americans, so that the government can store that and know what it is that we’re doing at all times, even when there’s no reason to believe that we’ve done anything wrong, that is ludicrous, and Democratic senators are the ones saying that it has nothing to do with that law.

AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday, Glenn, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he stood by what he told Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in March, when he said that the National Security Agency does "not wittingly" collect data on millions of Americans. Let’s go to that exchange.
SENRON WYDEN: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?
JAMES CLAPPER: No, sir.
SENRON WYDEN: It does not?
JAMES CLAPPER: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the questioning of the head of the national intelligence, James Clapper, by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: OK. So, we know that to be a lie, not a misleading statement, not something that was sort of parsed in a way that really was a little bit deceitful, but an outright lie. They collect—they collect data and records about the communications activities and other behavioral activities of millions of Americans all the time. That’s what that program is that we exposed on Wednesday. They go to the FISAcourt every three months, and they get an order compelling telephone companies to turn over the records, that he just denied they collect, with regard to the conversations of every single American who uses these companies to communicate with one another. The same is true for what they’re doing on the Internet with the PRISM program. The same is true for what the NSA does in all sorts of ways.

We are going to do a story, coming up very shortly, about the scope of the NSA’s spying activities domestically, and I think it’s going to shock a lot of people, because the NSA likes to portray itself as interested only in foreign intelligence gathering and only in targeting people who they believe are guilty of terrorism, and yet the opposite is true. It is a massive surveillance state of exactly the kind that the Church Committee warned was being constructed 35 years ago. And we intend to make all those facts available so people can see just how vast it is and how false those kind of statements are.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go back to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein. Speaking on MSNBC, she said the leak should be investigated and that the U.S. has a, quote, "culture of leaks."
SENDIANNE FEINSTEIN: There is nothing new in this program. The fact of the matter is that this was a routine three-month approval, under seal, that was leaked.
ANDREA MITCHELL: Should it be—should the leak be investigated?
SENDIANNE FEINSTEIN: I think so. I mean, I think we have become a culture of leaks now.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Dianne Feinstein, being questioned by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Glenn Greenwald, your final response to this? And sum up your findings. They’re talking about you, Glenn.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think Dianne Feinstein may be the most Orwellian political official in Washington. It is hard to imagine having a government more secretive than the United States. Virtually everything that government does, of any significance, is conducted behind an extreme wall of secrecy. The very few leaks that we’ve had over the last decade are basically the only ways that we’ve had to learn what our government is doing.

But look, what she’s doing is simply channeling the way that Washington likes to threaten the people over whom they exercise power, which is, if you expose what it is that we’re doing, if you inform your fellow citizens about all the things that we’re doing in the dark, we will destroy you. This is what their spate of prosecutions of whistleblowers have been about. It’s what trying to threaten journalists, to criminalize what they do, is about. It’s to create a climate of fear so that nobody will bring accountability to them.

It’s not going to work. I think it’s starting to backfire, because it shows their true character and exactly why they can’t be trusted to operate with power in secret. And we’re certainly not going to be deterred by it in any way. The people who are going to be investigated are not the people reporting on this, but are people like Dianne Feinstein and her friends in the National Security Agency, who need investigation and transparency for all the things that they’ve been doing.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, we want to thank you for being with us. Is this threat of you being investigated going to deter you in any way, as you continue to do these exclusives, these exposés?

GLENN GREENWALD: No, it’s actually going to embolden me to pursue these stories even more aggressively.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, I want to thank you for being with us, columnist and blogger for The Guardian newspaper. We’ll link to your exposés on our website, "NSA Taps in to Internet Giants’ Systems to Mine User Data, Secret Files Reveal", as well as "NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily".

This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, a Democracy Now! exclusive. President Obama just announced that the U.S. did kill, over the last years, four Americans. We’re going to speak with the father of Anwar al-Awlaki. His name is Nasser al-Awlaki. We’re speaking to him in Sana’a, Yemen. He’s also a grandfather of another of the victims, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was born in Denver. He was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen. Stay with us.