Benton RSS Feed
The secret court that adjudicates national security-related information requests lifted the veil on its operations a tiny bit, ruling that portions of one of its earlier opinions could be disclosed to the public.
The ruling came in a case by the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. It had pressed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to allow one of its opinions to be disclosed under a Freedom of Information Act request. The government argued that there is good reason to keep the case sealed. The court said it saw no reason to prohibit disclosing the documents sought under the Freedom of Information request. It left it to a federal court in the District of Columbia to make a ruling on the specific Freedom of Information Act litigation. In other words, the court said it would not stand in the way of another court, if it ruled in favor of the organization’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Secret Surveillance Court May Reveal Some Secrets For the first time, secret court won’t block release of NSA opinion (ars technica) Analysis: Secret Intelligence Court Hardly Ever Says No (National Journal)
The chairman of the House Subcommittee on Counterintelligence and Terrorism says that journalists who exposed controversial surveillance programs should be punished.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told CNN that it’s fair to punish both the leakers and those who publish the information. “If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think actions should be taken, especially something of this magnitude,” Rep King said. “I think, with something of this magnitude, there is an obligation — both moral, but also legal — against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security.” Rep King then responded directly to the question about punishing journalists: “The answer is yes, to your question.” Rep King also called leaker Edward Snowden a “traitor,” arguing that he violated the Espionage Act.
Rep. Peter King: Punish journalists for leaks
Lee looks at the following questions about the National Security Agency’s PRISM system used to gain access to the private communications of users of nine popular Internet services.
- What do the Internet companies who allegedly participate in this program have to say about it?
- Are the companies lying? Or using legalistic language to hide their participation?
- If PRISM doesn’t give the NSA unfettered access to our online information, what does it do?
- Is there anything to worry about?
- FISA only allows targeting of foreigners. That means it can’t use FISA orders to read Americans’ e-mails, right?
Here’s everything we know about PRISM to date
Everyone is up in arms about PRISM, the National Security Agency program that allegedly gave the government access to several Internet companies’ servers. But when you go to a news site to read about PRISM, you’re watched by dozens of commercial data trackers, mostly marketing or analytics firms and advertising networks.
The hubbub over the government’s secret data program has renewed the scrutiny of all forms of data mining, both the government and private varieties. Programs like PRISM ostensibly target potential terrorists. But commercial data mining has a much broader mandate: Sell stuff to people by targeting ads based on where they go and what they do online. As a result, consumers are increasingly watched by third parties no matter where they browse the Web. When privacy advocates discuss commercial data tracking, they’re usually referring to a wide range of activities — from data brokers like Acxiom, which aggregates online and offline shopping habits, to services like the Google display network, which tracks browsing data to serve up relevant ads. There are significant and important differences between commercial and government tracking. Chief among them is that companies are subject to market pressures, while the government is not. Still, many users are unaware of the breadth of tracking by commercial data miners, another anxiety for privacy advocates who see big data eroding consumer rights online.
PRISM data collection draws attention to consumer data tracking
The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation told lawmakers that labeling a target of an investigation as a criminal co-conspirator does not indicate a desire to prosecute them.
“Quite often in search warrants or affidavits in support of search warrants, there are occasions where a person will be mentioned as having culpability, but there will be no discussion or anticipation of prosecution,” FBI Director Robert Mueller said at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. “That could be for a variety of reasons.” Mueller made the remarks while speaking about the case against Fox News reporter James Rosen.
FBI director suggests Fox reporter unlikely to be prosecuted
The National Security Agency leaker is lying about both his access to information and the scope of the secret surveillance programs he uncovered, the heads of the House Intelligence Committee charged.
Emerging from a hearing with NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), the senior Democrat on the panel, said Snowden simply wasn't in the position to access the content of the communications gathered under National Security Agency programs, as he's claimed. "He was lying," Chairman Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do." "He's done tremendous damage to the country where he was born and raised and educated," Rep Ruppersberger said. Asked how much additional information — including other Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act verdicts — Snowden has in his possession, Chairman Rogers said, "No one really knows the answer to that today. I think we will know the answer to that shortly." "It was clear that he attempted to go places that he was not authorized to go, which should raise questions for everyone," Chairman Rogers added.
Snowden is lying, say chiefs of House Intelligence panel
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, accused the Obama Administration of breaking the law by collecting the phone records of millions of Americans.
"It seems clear the government's activity exceeds the authority this Congress has provided — both in letter and in spirit," Rep. Conyers said during a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the FBI. He said that he and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) will introduce legislation to explicitly narrow the Patriot Act to prevent broad surveillance. "In no small part because of the actions of the NSA and the FBI, I fear we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state, collecting billions of electronic records on law-abiding Americans every single day," Rep Conyers said.
Administration's phone surveillance broke the law, says Conyers
The metadata that the National Security Agency collects on all calls in the U.S. is not just what's on a phone bill, as the program's supporters have claimed. Your phone bill lists some of the same things the NSA's collecting — numbers dialed, length of all — but does not list the geolocation of each of your calls. It is that final piece of data — where you made your calls — that tells the government everything about your life. The government doesn't need to listen to your calls. Because it already knows where you are, and that does matter. In a paper published in Nature's Scientific Reports last year, MIT researchers found that with cell phone call metadata from 1.5 million anonymous people, they could identify a person easily with just four phone calls. As Foreign Policy's Joshua Keating explains, they didn't need names, addresses, or phone numbers. They only used time of the call and the closest cell tower.
Why Your Metadata Is Your Every Move
[Commentary] One might think that recent allegations that the NSA is spying on everyone’s internet activity and phone records is just a privacy issue, but it is also an affront to the free flow of information on the internet and jeopardizes our ability to promote the ideals of an open internet abroad.
Any massive collection of information on internet activity, whether it be incidental or directed, is bound to cause some internet users to change their activity. That is wrong. People, both internationally and in the US, shouldn’t have to think twice about what they do, where they go, and what they say on the internet out of fear that the government may be watching. People will now be hesitant to use and create new things, and because of that, the growth of the internet as tool for creativity, innovation and democratic discourse will be stunted. Public Knowledge fights against threats to free speech and innovation on the internet. This overreach by the NSA has the potential to do just that; so naturally Public Knowledge is working to stop it.
How the NSA’s Overstep Harms the Internet
In their latest products, both Apple and Samsung are taking steps to make stolen phones less useful to those who purloin them. Apple is adding an “activation lock” option in iOS 7 that would prevent thieves from reactivating a stolen phone, while Samsung has partnered with Absolute Software to add a “kill switch” in the Galaxy S4. But more needs to be done, say San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who convened a meeting with those companies, along with Google and Microsoft. “The smartphone industry has a responsibility to take action to end the rising and increasingly dangerous epidemic of smartphone theft,” the two officials said in a statement. “Apple and Samsung have taken steps in the right direction, but it is clear to us that the industry as a whole has more work to do to protect consumers from violent street crimes.”
Apple, Samsung Take Steps to Combat Cellphone Theft but Pressed to Do More