In rare remarks about a sensitive issue, the director of the CIA confirmed today that the U.S. government works with foreign intelligence agencies to capture and jointly interrogate suspected terrorists.
“There are places throughout the world where CIA has worked with other intelligence services and has been able to bring people into custody and engage in the debriefings of these individuals … through our liaison partners, and sometimes there are joint debriefings that take place as well,” said John Brennan, the CIA director, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Brennan’s remarks confirm what journalists have long reported: that the Obama administration sometimes helps other countries do the dirty work of snatching and interrogating terror suspects — keeping the U.S. at arm’s length from operations that are ethically and legally dubious.
During a question-and-answer session, it was Fox News’ Megyn Kelley who questioned Brennan about “capturing terrorists.”
“Are we still doing that?” she asked. “And where are we keeping them and how are we interrogating them?”
Brennan responded that the U.S. is able to work with “partners” to “identify individuals and to have them captured … although there are not a lot of public pieces on Fox News about somebody that might be picked up in different parts of the world.”
In one of his first moves after taking office in 2009, President Obama famously shut down the CIA’s Black Site program, which was begun under President George W. Bush. After 9/11, more than 100 alleged terrorists were captured and sent to secret CIA-run detention centers where they were tortured and interrogated by agency operatives.
Although the Black Sites have been shut down and no new prisoners sent to Guantánamo Bay, detentions of terrorists — and attacks against them — remain a murky issue. The administration has brought several alleged terrorists to face trial in the United States, and it has killed thousands more in drone strikes, along with hundreds of civilians. Obama has also maintained the authority (as President Bill Clinton did in the 1990s) to render people to third countries, where laws are looser.
The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill and others have detailed cases during the Obama administration in which terror suspects were held in foreign custody at the behest of the U.S. In 2011, Scahill reported for The Nation on a secret prison in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu. Though officially run by the Somali government, Scahill wrote, “US intelligence personnel pay the salaries of intelligence agents and also directly interrogate prisoners” at the facility.
Month: March 2015
Officials Upset Tech Companies Reluctant To Play Along With Administration’s ‘Information Sharing’ Charade
The government’s on-again, off-again love affair with everything cyber is back on again. The CIA has just shifted its focus, abandoning its position as the free world’s foremost franchiser ofclandestine torture sites and rebranding as the agency of choice for all things cyberwar-related.
For years, legislators have been attempting to grant themselves permission to strong-arm tech companies into handing over all sorts of information to the government under the guise of cybersecurity. CISPA, CISA, etc. The acronyms come and go, but the focus is the same: information sharing.
Of course, the promise of equitable sharing remains pure bullshit. Tech companies know this and have been understandably resistant to the government’s advances. There are few, if any positives, to these proposed “agreements.” The government gets what it wants — lots and lots of data — and the companies get little more than red tape, additional restrictions and fleeing customers.
The government has recently been playing up the narrative that unreasonable tech companies are standing in the way of the nation’s super-secure future.
U.S. government officials say privately they are frustrated that Silicon Valley technology firms are not obtaining U.S. security clearances for enough of their top executives, according to interviews with officials and executives in Washington and California. Those clearances would allow the government to talk freely with executives in a timely manner about intelligence they receive, hopefully helping to thwart the spread of a hack, or other security issues.
The lack of cooperation from Silicon Valley, Washington officials complain, injects friction into a process that everyone agrees is central to the fight to protect critical U.S. cyberinfrastructure: Real-time threat information sharing between government and the private sector.
Before dealing with the questionable promise of “real-time threat information sharing,” let’s deal with the supposedly minor requirement of security clearances. It’s not as if this won’t impose undue burdens on tech company leaders, especially when they already have a pretty good idea this stipulation will be a major hassle followed by continued opacity from a government that’s 90% lip service and 10% outright lying. Tech execs are being asked to make all the effort and hope against hope there will actually be some benefits.
“I believe that this is more about the overclassification of information and the relatively low value that government cyberintel has for tech firms,” said one Silicon Valley executive. “Clearances are a pain to get, despite what government people think. Filling out the paper work … is a nightmare, and the investigation takes a ridiculous amount of time.”
[…]
“I think tech companies are doing a return-on-investment analysis and don’t think the government intel is worth the cost or effort,” said the Silicon Valley executive. “This is why government threat signature sharing initiatives are such a nothing-burger: The signatures are of limited value and only a few select companies with clearances can actually use them.”
The clearance process can easily take over a year. The application runs 127 pages and asks a mixture of questions ranging from highly-intrusive to facially-ridiculous.
Ron Wyden: ‘Plenty’ Of Domestic Surveillance Programs Still Unexposed
In a few months, we’ll be marking the second anniversary of the first Snowden leak. The outraged responses of citizens and politicians around the world to these revelations has resulted in approximately nothing in those 24 months. There have been bright spots here and there — where governments and their intelligence agencies were painted into corners by multiple leaks and forced to respond — but overall, the supposed debate on the balance between security and privacy has been largely ignored by those on Team National Security.
Here in the US, multiple surveillance reforms were promised. So far, very little has been put into practice. The NSA may be forced to seek court approval for searches of its bulk phone metadata, but otherwise the program rolls on unimpaired and slightly rebranded (from Section 215 to Section 501).
Senator Ron Wyden — one of the few members of our nation’s intelligence oversight committees actively performing any oversight — isn’t happy with the lack of progress. In an interview with Buzzfeed’s John Stanton, Wyden points out that not only has there been little movement forward in terms of surveillance reform, there actually may have been a few steps backward.
Wyden bluntly warned that even after the NSA scandal that started with Edward Snowden’s disclosures, the Obama administration has continued programs to monitor the activities of American citizens in ways that the public is unaware of and that could be giving government officials intimate details of citizens’ lives.
Asked if intelligence agencies have domestic surveillance programs of which the public is still unaware, Wyden said simply, “Yeah, there’s plenty of stuff.
The Orwellian Re-Branding of “Mass Surveillance” as Merely “Bulk Collection”
Just as the Bush administration and the U.S. media re-labelled “torture” with the Orwellian euphemism “enhanced interrogation techniques” to make it more palatable, the governments and media of the Five Eyes surveillance alliance are now attempting to re-brand “mass surveillance” as “bulk collection” in order to make it less menacing (and less illegal). In the past several weeks, this is the clearly coordinated theme that has arisen in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand as the last defense against the Snowden revelations, as those governments seek to further enhance their surveillance and detention powers under the guise of terrorism.
This manipulative language distortion can be seen perfectly in yesterday’s white-washing report of GCHQ mass surveillance from the servile rubber-stamp calling itself “The Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament (ISC)”(see this great Guardian editorial this morning on what a “slumbering” joke that “oversight” body is). As Committee Member MP Hazel Blears explained yesterday (photo above), the Parliamentary Committee officially invoked this euphemism to justify the collection of billions of electronic communications events every day.
The Committee actually acknowledged for the first time (which Snowden documents long ago proved) that GCHQ maintains what it calls “Bulk Personal Datasets” that contain “millions of records,” and even said about pro-privacy witnesses who testified before it: “we recognise their concerns as to the intrusive nature of bulk collection.” That is the very definition of “mass surveillance,” yet the Committee simply re-labelled it “bulk collection,” purported to distinguish it from “mass surveillance,” and thus insist that it was all perfectly legal.
UN Cultural Rights Rapporteur Delivers Report Condemning Prevailing Copyright Laws
Shaheed said a “widely shared concern stems from the tendency for copyright protection to be strengthened with little consideration to human rights issues.” This is illustrated by trade negotiations conducted in secrecy, and with the participation of corporate entities, she said.
She stressed the fact that one of the key points of her report is that intellectual property rights are not human rights. “This equation is false and misleading,” she said.
Project G650
This story has gone viral on twitter this morning for all the wrong reasons. Celebrity pastor Creflo Dollar, worth a reported 27 million dollars, is crowdfunding a new private jet worth a reported 65 million dollars. Dubbed Project G650, the pastor is requesting his followers donate to the project “in order to continue to spread the word of god across the globe”.
The mission of Project G650 is to acquire a Gulfstream G650 airplane so that Pastors Creflo and [wife] Taffi and World Changers Church International can continue to blanket the globe with the Gospel of grace. … We are believing for 200,000 people to give contributions of 300 US dollars or more to make this a reality—and allow us to retire the aircraft that served us well for many years.
This isn’t really that shocking as I assume stuff like this happens all the time. Its the nature of the (celebrity evangelical megachurch) business. Still, 65 million dollars could feed a lot of folks, or put shoes on their feet.
![This story has gone viral on twitter this morning for all the wrong reasons. Celebrity pastor Creflo Dollar, worth a reported 27 million dollars, is crowdfunding a new private jet worth a reported 65 million dollars. Dubbed Project G650, the pastor is requesting his followers donate to the project “in order to continue to spread the word of god across the globe”. The mission of Project G650 is to acquire a Gulfstream G650 airplane so that Pastors Creflo and [wife] Taffi and World Changers Church International can continue to blanket the globe with the Gospel of grace. … We are believing for 200,000 people to give contributions of 300 US dollars or more to make this a reality—and allow us to retire the aircraft that served us well for many years.This isn’t really that shocking as I assume stuff like this happens all the time. Its the nature of the (celebrity evangelical megachurch) business. Still, 65 million dollars could feed a lot of folks, or put shoes on their feet.](http://40.media.tumblr.com/61d41fe5e40d9fe4264376aaa0d15be6/tumblr_nl5qfiCuQs1rugltbo1_1280.jpg)
Angry Austrian could turn Europe against the US – thanks to data
In a David versus Goliath battle, an Austrian law student may topple the biggest EU-US data sharing deal when he gets his day in court in a couple of weeks’ time.
Max Schrems, who set up the Europe v Facebook group, alleges that Facebook violated the so-called safe harbour agreement which protects EU citizens’ privacy by transferring personal user data to the US National Security Agency (NSA).
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will hear details of the case on 24 March.
Schrems first appealed to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner to investigate his claims. He was refused on the grounds that Facebook was signed up to the safe harbour agreement and so could transfer data to the US with impunity.
Under European data protection law, companies can only transfer consumer data out of the EU to countries where there is an “adequate” level of privacy protection. As the US does not meet this adequacy standard, the European Commission and the US authorities came up with a workaround and, in 2000, set up the voluntary safe harbour framework whereby companies promise to protect European citizens’ data.
These promises are enforced by the US Federal Trade Commission – but since the Snowden revelations, there has been doubt these promises are worth the paper they’re written on.
Canadian Town Bans Spitting, Swearing And Gathering In Groups Of Three Or More
Taber, a town of 8,100 in Alberta, Canada, must be in the midst of the nation’s smallest and least impressive crimewave. How else would you explain the town’s new “Community Standards Bylaw,” which imposes the following on its residents?
With a sweeping new bylaw, the southern Alberta town of Taber has outlawed swearing in public, instituted a nightly curfew on kids and teenagers, and granted local law enforcement the power to break up any assemblies of three or more people.
It’s petty enough in the summary, but it gets even worse in the fine print.
Here’s the “swearing” part of the bylaw:
No person shall yell, scream, or swear in any Public Place.
Which won’t hold up to Canada’s free speech laws, even with the plentiful exceptions the government can enact at any time. And it will apparently be up to patrolling officers to decide when a raised voice constitutes a “yell,” and always with one ear cocked towards any errant public swearing occuring at lower volumes.
Then there’s this part of the bylaw, which makes possibly disturbing others a crime.
No persons shall, during any period of the day allow, suffer or permit any electronic equipment, musical instruments, vehicles or any other devices to be sounded or used in any area of the Town of Taber, that may, or is likely, to disturb others.
There’s also a clause apparently inserted by Taber’s Behavior Nazis solely to anger the world’s Grammar Nazis.
And bad cops will have all sorts of fun with this one:No person shall be a member of the assembly of three or more persons in any Public Place where a Peace Officer has reasonable grounds to believe the assembly will disturb the peace of the neighborhood, and any such person shall disperse as requested by a Peace Officer.
“Reasonable grounds.” As is common to the rest of the bylaw, criminal intent is scuttled in preference of “whatever the Peace Officer believes.”
So, what has prompted this move towards a more controlled populace? The answer appears to be that it’s just something the town’s law enforcement wanted.
[Police Commission Chairman Ken] Holst said the goal of the bylaw was “to give another layer of tools to our police service.”
He said it came largely in response to concerns raised by citizens in a survey commissioned by the Taber Police Service.
“Graffiti was the main concern and the second concern was large gatherings of youth and other people on town property, sometimes causing issues,” he said.
While some of those issues could be addressed through existing provincial and federal laws, Holst said Taber wanted to empower its law enforcement when an offence is “imminent to occur,” which he described as “preventative policing.”
Ah, the old “thoughtcrime,” as practiced by loitering youths. Holst didn’t want this community of 8,100 to suffer the existential threat posed by aimless teens, so he and his law enforcement buddies helped write the bylaw.
Holst said the bylaw was drafted by town staff and the Taber Police Service and was reviewed by the police commission before being sent on to town council, where it was approved by a 6-1 vote.
And, since it was written by law enforcement, there was apparently no need to ensure the bylaw didn’t violate anyone’s rights or would even hold up in court. Because who knows the law better than law enforcement officers? No one, that’s who. Just ask any cop.
Holst said no lawyers were involved in the police commission’s review and they didn’t discuss whether aspects of the bylaw would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms…
“Exactly how that sits with the Charter, to be 100 per cent honest with you, that discussion did not come up with the commission,” Holst said.
Because screw the public.
Save that 100%, Holst. You’re going to need it. Here’s an actual legal expert with 45 years experience, and he’s of the opinion there’s a 100% chance it’s in violation.
“It clearly, clearly infringes the Charter,” [Michael] Dietrich said.
And now that the ridiculous bylaw has drawn mockery from around the internet, Holst and other city representatives are shocked and saddened by all the criticism.
“It hurts my heart,” Ken Holst said Tuesday. “I’m hurt today to read some of the extreme comments that have circulated on social media…”
“We really feel this is the best for Taber and makes it a better place, as opposed to ‘the worst place on Earth,’ as the way some people are portraying this,” he said.
Holst further defended his stupid bylaw by pointing to other similarly stupid Canadian towns that have enacted similarly stupid bylaws. Presumably, this belated justification will also not be run by any legal experts — armchair or actual — who may point out that two wrongs still don’t equal a right, no matter what some informal, police-guided survey might “indicate.”
Mega Ponders Legal Action in Response to Damaging Paypal Ban
September last year the Digital Citizens Alliance and NetNames released a report that looked into the business models of “shadowy” file-storage sites.
Titled “Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions,” the report offers insight into the money streams that end up at these alleged pirate sites.
The research claims that the sites in question are mostly used for copyright infringement. But while there are indeed many shadowy hosting services, many were surprised to see the Kim Dotcom-founded Mega.co.nz on there.
For entertainment industry groups the report offered an opportunity to put pressure on Visa and MasterCard. In doing so they received support from U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, who was also the lead sponsor of the defunct controversial Protect IP Act (PIPA).
Senator Leahy wrote a letter to the credit card companies claiming that the sites mentioned in the report have “no legitimate purpose or activity,” hoping they would cut their connections to the mentioned sites.
Visa and MasterCard took these concerns to heart and pressed PayPal to cut off its services to Mega, which eventually happened late last month. Interestingly, PayPal cited Mega’s end-to-end-encryption as one of the key problems, as that would make it harder to see what files users store.
The PayPal ban has been a huge blow for Mega, both reputation-wise and financially. And the realization that the controversial NetNames report is one of the main facilitators of the problems is all the more frustrating.
TorrentFreak spoke with CEO Graham Gaylard, who previously characterized the report as “grossly untrue and highly defamatory,” to discuss whether Mega still intends to take steps against the UK-based NetNames for their accusations.
Initially, taking legal action against NetNames for defamation was difficult, as UK law requires the complaining party to show economic damage. However, after the PayPal ban this shouldn’t be hard to do.
Gaylard is traveling through Europe at the moment and he notes that possible repercussions against the damaging report are high on the agenda.
“Yes, I am here to see Mega’s London-based legal counsel to discuss the next steps in progressing the NetNames’ response,” Gaylard informs TF.
Mega’s CEO couldn’t release any details on a possible defamation lawsuit, but he stressed that his company will fiercely defend itself against smear campaigns.
“Mega has been operating, and continues to operate a completely legitimate and transparent business. Unfortunately now, with the blatant, obvious, political pressure and industry lobbying against Mega, Mega needs to defend itself and will now cease taking a passive stance,” Gaylard says.
According to the CEO Mega is running a perfectly legal business. The allegation that it’s a piracy haven is completely fabricated. Like any other storage provider, there is copyrighted content on Mega’s servers, but that’s a tiny fraction of the total stored.
To illustrate this, Gaylard mentions that they only receive a few hundred takedown notices per month. In addition, he notes more than 99.7% of the 18 million files that are uploaded per day are smaller than 20MB in size, not enough to share a movie or TV-show.
These statistics are certainly not the hallmark of a service with “no legitimate purpose or activity,” as was claimed.
While the PayPal ban is a major setback, Mega is still doing well in terms of growth. They have 15 million registered customers across 200 countries, and hundreds of thousands of new users join every month.
Dutch Court Sets Aside National Data Retention Law
Back in January, we wrote about a legal challenge to the Netherlands’ data retention law by a group of civil rights organizations. This was because the Dutch government had decided to ignore the important ruling by Europe’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), that blanket data retention was “invalid.” Now, a court in The Hague has ruled the government was wrong to do so:
Dutch providers are no longer required to retain internet and phone traffic data. The telecommunications data retention law, that was fought in court by various privacy groups and small ISPs, is invalid.
That was ruled by the court of The Hague on Wednesday. The data retention law violated the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically regarding the right to protection of private life and protection of personal data.
As that report from Nu.nl, translated by Matthijs R. Koot on his blog, makes clear, the court’s judgment affects all kinds of telecoms — both Internet and phone traffic data — and all communication providers. This is the judge’s reasoning:
The judge finds that the collected data are too easily accessible for crimes that are not serious. The plaintiffs stated that, technically, theft of a bicycle could lead to access to data, although the government stated this does not happen.
“Fact of the matter is that the possibility exists and that no safeguards exist to limit access to the data to what is strictly necessary to fight (only) serious crime”, according to the judge.
The court also finds it to be incorrect that no prior court approval is needed to access the data.
The judge’s ruling is only “provisonally enforeable”, and the Dutch government may appeal against it. But even if it does, it has a larger problem with its policy in this area. Although it claims a new data retention bill will be compatible with the CJEU ruling, the Netherlands’ Data Protection Authority has already said that it is still too intrusive for a number of reasons. Clearly, the European debate over what is a reasonable and proportionate level of data retention — if any — has a long way to go yet, both in the Netherlands and elsewhere.