backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 133 comment(s) - last by eGuepard.. on Nov 15 at 10:18 AM


  (Source: notbored.org)
Felt "forced to connect the Big Brother Machine" if he wanted to keep his job

Mark Klein, the former AT&T technician and whistleblower who helped kick off the AT&T/NSA eavesdropping scandal, clarified further details regarding what he witnessed while connecting a secret NSA eavesdropping facility: secure room 641A in AT&T’s San Francisco switching center, presumably commissioned by the NSA, received copies of all the traffic its splitters were connected to, including both international and domestic e-mails, web traffic, and phone calls, both from AT&T’s customers as well as other providers.

Previous statements by the government, AT&T and President Bush indicated that the only affected communications are communications relevant to national security, like those of suspected terrorists and suspicious foreign nationals. According to Klein, however, the technology used to connect the secure room was far more democratic, consisting of simple, dumb splitters incapable of any kind of contextual filtering: essentially, room 641A received “a duplicate of every fiber-optic signal routed through [AT&T’s] facilities.”

Klein, appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann show, told viewers about his personal association with secure room 641A. “When I was a technician, I had the engineering/wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room … I had to know [about those things] in order to do my job,” he said, “so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied; the entire datastream was copied into the secret room.”

Referring to the equipment itself, Klein states, “the splitter device has no selective capability, it just copies everything. We’re talking about domestic traffic, as well as international traffic, and that’s what got me upset to begin with.”

It’s important to note that what actually went on inside secure room 641A — what was actually being done with the data that it was fed — has yet to be discovered. However, the room contained several racks of equipment fine-tuned for data mining, including a Narus STA 6400, a device designed specifically for analyzing Internet communications “at very high speeds.”

Forged amongst the dust settled after 9/11, President Bush signed an order allowing U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor international phone calls and e-mail messages of thousands of people inside the United States without a warrant. This program was uncovered in December 2005, when the New York Times printed an article that would eventually push Klein to disclose his experiences, and sign an affidavit testifying in a January 2006 class action lawsuit filed by the EFF.

According to Klein, an NSA agent appeared at AT&T’s San Francisco switching center, interviewing management-level technicians for a “special job.” Shortly afterwords, Klein observed the construction of secure room 641A, which was housed adjacent to AT&T’s international- and long-distance call-routing #4ESS equipment. Eventually, said Klien, he ended up tasked with patching in optical splitters from the secret room and into AT&T’s production, backbone switching equipment.

More importantly, says Klein, internal documentation suggests similar equipment was installed at facilities in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

Both the U.S. government and AT&T have tried adamantly to kill the class action suit, which is still pending. AT&T claims that it was following government orders and is therefore immune to legal action. The government has made multiple attempts at invoking the State Secrets Privilege, but so far with little success.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No surprise here.
By leetruski on 11/10/2007 3:00:33 AM , Rating: 5
I remember reading 1984 a couple years back and thought to myself, "Hmm this seems quite familiar in some aspects." This doesn't surprise me at all considering where I'm from (former Soviet Union}. As technology advances so does the sophistication of spying techniques. Oh well gotta go and practice the daily ritual of Two Minutes Hate.




RE: No surprise here.
By JackBeQuick on 11/10/2007 3:26:59 AM , Rating: 3
Well, this looks like some pretty serious proof of Echelon to me.


RE: No surprise here.
By geddarkstorm on 11/12/2007 12:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's the Patriots : O! Pretty soon we'll be hearing about all terrain armored tanks capable of firing intercontinental ballistic missiles. That is unless They get to the information first and erase it. ;)


RE: No surprise here.
By HueyD on 11/12/2007 1:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, sounds like project Echelon which has been running since the early-mid 90's. This is not anything new. 60-minutes did a story on it back in the mid-late 90's.


RE: No surprise here.
By Alexstarfire on 11/10/2007 5:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's as bad as everyone is led to believe. I mean, if they really had ALL the information that passed through the station then they'd never process it all. I mean, I doubt everyone in the world as a whole has read EVERYTHING that's on the net. If the entire world can't read it all, then I doubt a coupel hundred government agents are going to have time to sift through all of the current information while gigabytes, if not terabytes, of information comes in a day. I'd be a lot more worried if they actually acquired only the "national security" stuff. Got to say it's still bad either way. But have you ever heard of having TOO MUCH information.


RE: No surprise here.
By togaman5000 on 11/10/2007 8:31:12 AM , Rating: 5
That doesn't matter to me.

Whether my rights are being violated for everything I do to communicate, or whether my rights are violated for 1% of everything to do to communicate, they're still being violated.


RE: No surprise here.
By fictisiousname on 11/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: No surprise here.
By theapparition on 11/11/2007 7:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
Not to nit-pick, but could you tell me exactly which of your constitutional rights are being violated?


RE: No surprise here.
By ahodge on 11/11/2007 1:02:04 PM , Rating: 1
Um lets see...One of our basic Civil Liberties is our right to PRIVACY.

I can see this also affecting at least the following:
Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Depending on how our government feels about who we are talking to online, about what, and what god(s) we worship. You see, that's why we have the right to privacy from our government...So that we don't have to live in fear of our own government.

It's the stuff our country was founded on. Separation of church and state is also an issue when the fundamental Christian right wing has such strong control of our government. That comes in to play if they decide that they want to create a database of all the Jews in the country or people researching Judaism for instance. Maybe they decide to use that information abusively later?

Freedom of privacy is important even if you're not doing anything "wrong" by today's standards. What happens if the government decides to change the standard on you?


RE: No surprise here.
By katorga on 11/11/2007 10:02:19 PM , Rating: 4
Umm. There is no constitutional "right to privacy". That is an interpreted right from case law. Unreasonable search and seizure is what you are looking for, 4th amendment.

That said, all of the "spying on citizens" stuff is a little late. The NSA has been monitoring all communications since the 1950's, and internet traffic since the 1990s.


RE: No surprise here.
By chick0n on 11/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: No surprise here.
By Duwelon on 11/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: No surprise here.
By kyp275 on 11/12/2007 1:19:06 AM , Rating: 5
Nobody wishes for terror cells to go unchecked, except for the terrorists, so just leave that argument at home, it just makes you look bad.

Regardless of one's stand on the issue, it's important to recognize that protecting ourselves from BOTH the terrorists AND possible future government abuses are both very important, and rightly so. You can't have bureaucracy hampering our ability to go after the terrorist when needed, and neither can you set a precedence of giving the government blank checks to do whatever the hell the guy in charge at the moment pleases either, that's one slippery slope that is not easy to climb back.

It's very much like the classic "do you want to jail more bad guys along with some that are innocent, or do you want to make sure that no one is wrongly jailed, but leave some bad guys out in the street?" Both are important, and frankly, unlikely to ever be perfect and will both never be good enough for the proponents at either end of the extreme.


RE: No surprise here.
By theapparition on 11/12/2007 7:15:26 AM , Rating: 5
Nowhere in our constitution does it guarantee privacy. I know exactly what you are saying, and happen to agree that unchecked government monitoring is a bad thing, but on a strictly constitutional basis, privacy is something not guaranteed or protected. So, fact of the matter is, NSA snooping has not, in any form, violated our constitutional rights as citizens of the US.


RE: No surprise here.
By TSS on 11/12/2007 9:59:48 AM , Rating: 1
what about my constitution?

i'm dutch, ours is a bit longer then yours... i'm sure privacy or something like that is in there somewhere. i don't want you americans snooping my bits :P

i haven't done anything illigal and i'm far too uninteresting to be checked up at all... however i am critical of bush's reign. what would happen if they'd pick up on that (the message say they have high speed package analyzing equipment so trust me if it's in a email or message they'll know) and i where to ever travel to the states? right now, the NSA could put me on the terrorist watch list without me knowing and if i'd ever set foot on american soil i could get arrested immediately. you guys could be picked up at any time.

it doesn't matter whats the truth, it's what you can prove. and if they can prove that you are a terrorist more then you can prove you're not (and they've already managed to start a war because of it so i'd pick my battles carefully) you're going to spend an awful lot of time in a jail cell.


RE: No surprise here.
By Machinegear on 11/12/2007 12:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind the US Constitution does not place limits on the rights of citizens, it only places limits on the Federal Government.

If you are looking for every God given right you have in the US Constitution, you have already failed your civics test.

The real question is where in the US Constitution is NSA allowed to snoop?


RE: No surprise here.
By Crank the Planet on 11/12/2007 9:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
Article 4 of the Bill of Rights:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Basically it says I have a right to be secure in all my stuff- be that papers, effects, email, phone conversations whatever- against any search or seizure. If I'm being investigated for a crime then they have to state specifically in a warrant what they want to search or seize- they can't just do it on everything at their whim, especially blanket searching of everyone. What they are and have been doing is wrong. They have skipped the due process of law.

This article may not say the word "privacy," but that's what it's talking about. For those of you who are new to our country, this is another freedom of many that we hold dear and cherish.

Given the form of government we fought hard to seperate from, the Founding Fathers alongside the Costitution wrote The Bill of Rights to protect the people from that same type of corrupt government. That is why we fought so hard to be free. I like what Tony Blair had to say recently. He said I don't judge a country by it's decisions or political stance, I judge it by how many people want to get in. Millions of people come to this country every year to live. No other country can say that. Is America perfect? No...but we have what everybody wants. William Wallace said it best when he was tortured and then killed- FREEDOM!


RE: No surprise here.
By theapparition on 11/13/2007 8:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically it says I have a right to be secure in all my stuff- be that papers, effects, email, phone conversations whatever- against any search or seizure.

Basically? I think your reading more into it than the constitution explicitly states. Your adding email, phone and conversation in there is somewhat of a stretch.
If you send e-mail on your own network, than I would agree that constitutionally, you have the right for that information to only be seized upon a warrant. However, your sending that information over a public network (the INTERNET), through a 3rd party (ISP) and to another party (email recipient). This invalidates "privacy", and makes it subject to less stringent legal challenges. Now, have you ever looked at your ISP's terms and conditions?
Same with conversations, if you have a conversation in your home, that is not admissible unless by warrant (or testimony by the person you were having a conversation with, hence the email recipient above). Now, if you have that same conversation at a restaurant, then it is now public and subject to be "snooped on".

Look, I'm not trying to argue against unchecked government monitoring, but there is still no legal argument against what the US government has done so far. We may not like it, and the only way to make it illegal is for us to let our elected officials know how we feel. It's going to be an uphill battle, since we now live in a society that is happy to take their shoes off before boarding a plane.