Hands off my metadata

We know where you live.

We know who you talk to.

We know where you travel.

We know where you are now.

We have your social security number;

your credit card numbers;

your purchases;

your emails;

your text messages;

your photographs;

your videos;

We know the websites you visit;

the searches you perform;

the music/books/articles you “like.”

We know who your Facebook friends are and who they know.

We know what you’re typing right now; we pretty much know what you’re thinking.

But we don’t know what you just said on the phone with your mom — why should we care?

We know everything else.

“The public doesn’t understand,” [former Sun Microsystems engineer Susan Landau told Jane Mayer] … speaking about so-called metadata. “It’s much more intrusive than content.” She explained that the government can learn immense amounts of proprietary information by studying “who you call, and who they call. If you can track that, you know exactly what is happening — you don’t need the content.”

For example, she said, in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers. Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: “You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members.” And information from cell-phone towers can reveal the caller’s location. Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint. “You can see the sources,” she said. When the F.B.I. obtains such records from news agencies, the Attorney General is required to sign off on each invasion of privacy. When the N.S.A. sweeps up millions of records a minute, it’s unclear if any such brakes are applied.

Metadata, Landau noted, can also reveal sensitive political information, showing, for instance, if opposition leaders are meeting, who is involved, where they gather, and for how long. Such data can reveal, too, who is romantically involved with whom, by tracking the locations of cell phones at night. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

DNI Clapper lying to Congress in 2013 about the NSA’s domestic intelligence gathering capabilities

On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper answered: “No, sir.” And Wyden reiterated the question, “It does not?” Clapper responded: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect — but not wittingly.”

As can be seen in the video clip above, Clapper’s body language seems to say much more than his words. He literally squirms and bows his head as he issues his denial. His discomfort in being pressed to answer this question is transparent.

In an interview with National Journal on Wednesday, Clapper squirmed and equivocated even more: “What I said [before the Senate committee] was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails. I stand by that.”

What is implied in both of Clapper’s qualifications — that data is not collected ‘wittingly’ nor are e-mails viewed ‘voyeuristically’ — is that data gathered on millions of Americans is not systematically subject to human analysis.

But that’s irrelevant and almost certainly a willful deception since in the absence of any human analysis, vast databases can be created and massive amounts of machine analysis performed through which electronic data gathered on the bulk of the population can be used to construct and operate a social surveillance system of unparalleled scope and detail.

Facebooktwittermail

U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program

The PRISM Special Source Operations with trusted U.S. companies -- trusted, that is, by the NSA.

The Washington Post reports: The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.

The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.

An internal presentation on the Silicon Valley operation, intended for senior analysts in the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, described the new tool as the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief, which cited PRISM data in 1,477 articles last year. According to the briefing slides, obtained by The Washington Post, “NSA reporting increasingly relies on PRISM” as its leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly 1 in 7 intelligence reports.

That is a remarkable figure in an agency that measures annual intake in the trillions of communications. It is all the more striking because the NSA, whose lawful mission is foreign intelligence, is reaching deep inside the machinery of American companies that host hundreds of millions of American-held accounts on American soil.

The technology companies, which participate knowingly in PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted significant traffic during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing Syrian civil war. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

New York Times: The Obama ‘administration has now lost all credibility’

A New York Times editorial says: Within hours of the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the 9/11 attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Anger swells after NSA phone records collection revelations

The Guardian reports: The scale of America’s surveillance state was laid bare on Thursday as senior politicians revealed that the US counter-terrorism effort had swept up swaths of personal data from the phone calls of millions of citizens for years.

After the revelation by the Guardian of a sweeping secret court order that authorised the FBI to seize all call records from a subsidiary of Verizon, the Obama administration sought to defuse mounting anger over what critics described as the broadest surveillance ruling ever issued.

A White House spokesman said that laws governing such orders “are something that have been in place for a number of years now” and were vital for protecting national security. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the Verizon court order had been in place for seven years. “People want the homeland kept safe,” Feinstein said.

But as the implications of the blanket approval for obtaining phone data reverberated around Washington and beyond, anger grew among other politicians.

Intelligence committee member Mark Udall, who has previously warned in broad terms about the scale of government snooping, said: “This sort of widescale surveillance should concern all of us and is the kind of government overreach I’ve said Americans would find shocking.” Former vice-president Al Gore described the “secret blanket surveillance” as “obscenely outrageous”. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

FBI places most Americans under surveillance


Part of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order granted to the FBI on April 25, 2013.

The National Security Agency at the request of the FBI is keeping a record of everywhere you go and everyone you talk to at all times.

Since, as The Guardian reports, the government is collecting this information from all Verizon customers, it’s reasonable to assume that it is also doing so with every other telecommunications carrier. In other words, there’s little doubt that every single individual in this country who uses any form of electronic communication is under 24-hour-a-day surveillance.

The White House is hiding behind the word “metadata” as it attempts to defend its actions — on the assumption that most people will overlook the loss of privacy if they believe that the content of their conversations is not being recorded.

In reality, metadata is the information that is of greatest interest to a security state. How so? Imagine the converse. Suppose the NSA was recording the content of all communications but not the metadata. Suppose it could only gain access to the metadata under a specific search warrant. The government would always know everything that was being said but have no idea who was talking to who. It couldn’t engage in data mining, constructing social networks and most of the other features of a mass surveillance enterprise. It couldn’t utterly abandon the principle that criminal investigation needs to be constrained by reasonable suspicion and probably cause.

People who think that screening procedures by TSA agents are unreasonably intrusive should be even more concerned about the handling of their metadata.

It’s not just metadata; it’s my data. And it’s turning into the equivalent of a citizens’ bar code used not only by governments but also corporations who understand that information is power and thus resist whatever constraints are imposed on their ability to gather personal information as extensively and in as great detail as they can.

The Guardian reports: The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America’s largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an “ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Not the deep state but the streets pushing Erdoğan to change

Lale Kemal writes: A majority of Turks are now conscious of the fact that the mass protests that took place in this country in the past were masterminded by deep state elements so that they could hold on to their power at the expense of the elected governments.

Between 1960 and 2007, Turks witnessed bloody clashes that took place among leftist and rightist university students and massive demonstrations protesting against the governments in the periods prior to the three military coups as well as the three memorandums issued by the Turkish military that twice resulted in the fall of the government. The 29-year-old Kurdish uprising is a product of the bloody 1980 military coup, with the junta dealing a serious blow to democratic rights, which also deeply affected Kurds when they were banned from speaking their mother tongue even among themselves.

The current nationwide anti-government protests, however, are largely a product of people who are genuine in their demands in broader terms.

A peaceful, small-scale sit-in protest that started nine days ago in İstanbul’s Taksim Square against the demolition of the Gezi public park quickly turned into anti-government protests, reflecting people’s discontent. It escalated into some of the worst scenes of public disorder and police violence coupled with violence triggered by extreme groups seen in Turkey in recent years.

Today’s demonstrations are different from the previous deep-state organized ones since, among other things, they have brought together people from every segment of society. We understand this from the slogans being chanted by the demonstrators as well as the solidarity being displayed by the protesting crowds reflecting different ideologies that vary from moderate secularists and environmentalists to conservatives as well as gays and lesbians.

The driving force that united the protesters appears to be their anger against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s increased authoritarian behavior, treating the people as his subjects with arrogance and overconfidence. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Turkey finds that trouble knows no bounds

Hugh Pope writes: As instability undermines the Arab states established in the post-First World War map of the Middle East, a now vigorous Turkey, heir of the Ottoman Empire that was the main loser from that 20th century order, is taking a new look at the region.

‘Those borders are all false’, sniffed one of Turkey’s former top diplomats over dinner in February. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, says that Syria’s growing troubles since 2011 now amount to ‘an internal affair’ for Turkey, while in private officials talk breezily of Syria as ‘our former province’.

In the capital Ankara, a senior security official agreed that tumult in Syria over the past two years had vaporized much of the Cold War frontier of barbed wire and watch-towers. ‘The borders have become meaningless,’ he said.

In short, a major change is under way after decades in which Turkish policy was predicated on making the best of what it found in the Middle East.

This is not just a reaction to the catastrophic collapse of Syria into a failed state. In northern Iraq, Turkey is now moving firmly to cement a privileged energy, trade and security relationship with the Kurdistan Regional Government. ‘We warned the United States for 10 years, “you’re going to break up Iraq”. For this whole time we paid the price [of trying to hold Iraq together]’, the senior security official said. ‘Finally we saw the situation now that America is leaving, and said, “well, let’s turn this to our advantage”.’

Nobody in power in Ankara is talking of new annexations. But Turkey’s more opportunistic approach is rooted in the centuries during which it controlled most countries of what is the Sunni Muslim Arab world today, and a lingering grievance about how that empire was dismantled after the First World War ended in 1918.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu often says that uprisings in the Arab world can be seen as ‘closing a century of parenthesis’ – shorthand for rebuilding links between former Ottoman lands, even though he denies the policy is ‘neo-Ottoman’. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Syrian rebels seize UN border post in Golan Heights

The New York Times reports: Rebels fighting the Syrian government on Thursday seized control of the only border crossing operated by United Nations peacekeeping forces along the Israeli-Syrian cease-fire line in the Golan Heights, according to the Israeli military and rebel forces. Israeli forces were placed on alert in the sensitive and disputed area as the violence of the civil war threatened to spill over into Israeli-held territory.

A few hours later the situation remained confused. Israeli media reports said that the Syrian government forces appeared to have retaken the Quneitra crossing and the Syrian state news agency SANA said that a unit of the government forces had “repelled terrorist groups” that had “tried” to take over Quneitra border crossing.

But Ahmad al-Basheer, a member of the local revolutionary committee in the Quneitra area who was reached by Skype, insisted that the crossing was still under the rebels’ control and that the entire province of Quneitra had been “liberated.”

“The regime won’t recapture this crossing even if we all have to die to thwart it,” he added.

As the fighting raged, the Israeli military declared the Israeli side of the crossing a closed military zone and ordered farmers to stay out of fields near the cease-fire line, apparently anticipating more conflict between Syrian government forces and the rebels.

Facebooktwittermail

Iran outmaneuvers U.S. in the Syrian proxy war

Vali Nasr writes: Syria’s uprising offered the possibility of a strategic defeat of Iran. In this scenario, Iran would be weakened by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, its single Arab ally and a vital link to Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia. Isolated, Iran would become more vulnerable to international pressure to limit its nuclear program. And as Iran’s regional influence faded, those of its rivals — U.S. allies Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia — would expand.

Instead, events in Syria are spinning in Iran’s favor. Assad’s regime is winning ground, the war has made Iran more comfortable in its nuclear pursuits, and Iran’s gains have embarrassed U.S. allies that support the Syrian uprising. What’s more, Iran has strengthened its relationship with Russia, which may prove to be the most important strategic consequence of the Syrian conflict, should the U.S. continue to sit it out.

Part of the U.S. calculation in declining to intervene has been the assumption that Assad would inevitably fall. The U.S., apparently, did not consider the implications of leaving the door open to a comeback by Assad. Reinforced by Hezbollah fighters and armed with Iranian and Russian weapons, the Syrian army broke through rebel lines in the central city of al-Qusair last week. The symbolic victory has dashed hopes for a quick end to the regime or a diplomatic resolution to the fighting.

Syria is now a proxy war, the outcome of which will determine the regional pecking order. In the Mideast, aura of power decides strategic advantage. Hezbollah’s prowess in Syria is a blow to Saudi Arabia, which has supported Hezbollah’s political opponents in Lebanon. The Syrian army’s gains are a setback to the Saudis, Qataris and Turks, all of whom have backed the rebels with money and weapons.

The U.S. has withheld lethal aid, not to mention military action. The Obama administration has eschewed intervention in Syria as a slippery slope to full-scale war, a costly repeat of the Iraq fiasco. In making this case, however, the administration sends a strong signal that it also would not go to war against Iran, despite President Barack Obama’s statement that no option is off the table when it comes to stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. When U.S. officials say their options for intervention are constrained by Syria’s air defense systems, they are also saying they fear Iran’s. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

The U.S. has little interest in toppling Assad

Micah Zenko writes: Last week, the Daily Beast published an “exclusive” news story supported by comments from two anonymous administration officials: “Obama Asks Pentagon for Syria No-Fly Zone Plan.” The newsworthiness and hype surrounding such reporting was puzzling given that the military’s operational plans for a no-fly zone (NFZ) in Syria were completed many months ago and have been refined as new information has become available. Of course, versions of these plans have also been briefed in detail to the White House on multiple occasions. Soon after the Daily Beast story ran, Pentagon spokesperson Dave Lapan felt compelled to declare: “There is no new planning effort underway.” This failed effort to plant a story about White House interest in NFZ options for Syria is perhaps the most perfunctory effort ever to coerce a foreign leader — in this case, Bashar al-Assad, before the forthcoming diplomatic discussions in Geneva.

The Obama administration’s leaks should not be surprising — they are representative of the theatrical and half-hearted nature of America’s debate over military intervention in Syria. On March 27, 2011, just one week after a U.S.-led coalition began selectively enforcing an NFZ over Libya, then-Senator Joseph Lieberman endorsed a similar measure for Syria, in case Assad “turns his weapons on his people and begins to slaughter them, as Qaddafi did.” Over the subsequent 27 months, every plausible military tactic and mission has been exhaustively analyzed and deliberated by policymakers, active-duty and retired military officials, pundits (including myself), journalists, and others.

Civilian officials have requested a range of military options, the Pentagon’s planning process has responded, congressional committees have held multiple hearings, the media has covered the unfolding fighting in and around Syria, and interested commentators have offered their opinions.

Seven months ago, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters: “On the no-fly zone itself, you know that we’ve been saying for quite a while we continue to study whether that makes sense, how it might work.” As those “studies” have continued, the American people have been polled repeatedly to gauge their opinion — the latest two polls demonstrate that less than a quarter of Americans think the U.S. military should intervene in Syria.

At this point, it is safe to say that — short of definitive evidence of large-scale regime-directed chemical weapons use, or threats to Turkey, a U.S. treaty ally — it is highly unlikely that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria’s civil war. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Syrian rebels lose strategic town in boost for Assad

Reuters reports: Syrian government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies seized control of the border town of Qusair on Wednesday, dealing a major defeat to rebel fighters battling to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

Two weeks of heavy fighting reduced many buildings to mounds of twisted concrete, whole blocks flattened by shelling, with glass and rubble littering the streets as tired but delighted Syrian soldiers gathered at the bullet-riddled clock tower.

“We will not hesitate to crush with an iron fist those who attack us. … Their fate is surrender or death,” the Syrian armed forces command said in statement. “We will continue our string of victories until we regain every inch of Syrian land.”

An opposition group from the town said more than 500 rebels had died in two weeks of fighting, with a further 1,000 wounded, leaving just 400 outgunned men struggling to hold onto the town.

Facing determined Hezbollah guerrillas from neighboring Lebanon, who swung the fight Assad’s way, the survivors decided to escape in the night through a corridor that the attackers said they had deliberately left open to encourage flight.

Facebooktwittermail

Erdogan has been warned

Sule Kulu writes: “History shows that if nations cannot manage to win all together, they are destined to lose all together,” declared Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on the first anniversary of his 2007 re-election. “We defend freedom, justice, democracy and welfare for everybody.”

Back then, he promised that his Justice and Development Party, known by its Turkish initials, A.K.P., would embrace all sections of society regardless of political affiliation. He even thanked those who didn’t vote for him.

Five years later, Mr. Erdogan is facing growing criticism for disrespecting people’s lifestyles and interfering in their personal choices. His government has drafted and passed bills without public consultation. A law on restricting alcohol sales was passed on May 24 in Parliament via a last-minute amendment.

And then, two weeks later, again without public consultation, he began the demolition of a popular park as part of a controversial urban renewal plan for Taksim Square. The small-scale sit-in opposing the demolition morphed into mass nationwide public demonstrations after the police used excessive force against protesters.

How could a skilled politician as smart and experienced as Mr. Erdogan, who has been able to overcome a number of political crises in the past, including a threatened military coup in 2007, fail to see the bigger political picture?

In the past few days, Mr. Erdogan has claimed that those rallying against him were mobilized by the country’s opposition parties, especially the ultrasecular and ultranationalist bloc led by the Republican People’s Party (C.H.P.). He said the issue was not the park but a concerted political campaign against him by those who opposed his policies on partisan grounds. This was understandable given that his opponents have ignored the A.K.P.’s landmark achievements for the sake of partisanship in the past.

However, a quick look was enough to confirm that the opposition that took over Taksim last weekend was different. It was a largely nonpartisan movement made up of liberals, conservatives, independents and even likely A.K.P. voters. Their cause was later overshadowed by some violent groups, who dealt a serious blow to the public image of the protests through vandalism, looting and attacking women wearing head scarves. Yet the initial sit-in group, as well as those participating in the broader protests that followed, represented a broad cross section of society. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Protests in Turkey are ‘tremendous democratic advance’

Ziya Meral writes: Often, it is fair to say that most of what we read on Turkey in the international media tells us more about those who write it than guide us towards a healthy analysis of developments in the country. The same goes for vast majority of the commentary on the protests we saw in Istanbul and across the country over the last week.

While protests in each of the cities have a different context and local factors, without a doubt initial protests on and around Gezi Park have triggered a larger social eruption. Therefore, understanding the Gezi Park protests would be important as a reflection on trends that unite these protests.

So far, the most credible data that emerged on protestors in Istanbul’s Taksim Square has been a poll among 3,000 protestors in the Taksim area by Bilgi University. The findings signal important insights.

Bilgi’s survey has found that 39 per cent of protestors are 19 to 25 years old and 24 per cent are 26 to 30 years old. Some 53 per cent have never joined a protest before, while 70 per cent do not feel close to any opposition party. Only 7 per cent say they joined the protests due to mobilisation by a political group. As to the reasons for the protest – some 92 per cent blame the prime minister’s attitude, 91 per cent say police brutality, 84 per cent the media’s silence on the events, and 56 per cent say the cutting of the trees. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

What’s Happening In Turkey?

The Guardian reports: A crowd-funding campaign has raised over $55,000 in under 24 hours to help pay for a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for democratic action and new dialogue on Turkey.

The Indiegogo campaign – “Full Page Ad for Turkish Democracy in Action: OccupyGezi for the World” – called on contributors to raise a stated goal of $53,800, and asks people to “wake up”.

The text of the full-page New York Times ad:

Millions of Turkish citizens have been outraged by the violent reaction of their government to a peaceful protest aimed at saving Istanbul’s Gezi Park.

Outraged, yet not surprised.

Over the course of Prime Minister Erdogan’s 10-year term, we have witnessed a steady erosion of our rights and freedoms. Arrests of numerous journalists, artists, and even elected officials; restrictions on freedom of speech, women’s rights, and even alcohol sales have all demonstrated that the ruling party is not serious about democracy. Time and again, the prime minister has mocked and trivialised his nation’s concerns while Turkey’s own media has remained shamefully silent.

The people protesting bravely throughout Turkey are the proud inheritors of Atatürk’s legacy. We are not looters or extremists. We are students, teachers, workers, mothers, fathers. We represent various ethnicities and creeds, religions and ideologies. We stand united now because of our concern for Turkey’s future.

We demand an end to police brutality.

We demand a free and unbiased media.

We demand an open dialogue, not the dictate of an autocrat.

We hope that you will join the conversation and stand with us in solidarity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_protests_in_Turkey

#GeziPark #OccupyGezi #DirenGeziParki (En. Resist Gezi Park)

This statement is crowdfunded by concerned individuals from around the world.

Facebooktwittermail

Turkish police arrest suspected Iranian agent in Ankara protests

Today’s Zaman reports: Turkish police have arrested, among others, an Iranian national named Shayan Shamloo in connection with violent demonstrations in the Turkish capital that followed what was initially a peaceful environmental protest at Gezi Park in İstanbul.

According to a source in the government who wanted to remain anonymous because of the pending investigation into violent events held in a couple of locations in Ankara, the Iranian national was suspected to have played a provocateur role.

The same source also told Today’s Zaman that authorities suspect Mr. Shamloo has connections with the Iranian intelligence. Police have reportedly arrested some 15 foreign nationals across the country in connection with events and most of them have turned out to be Iranian nationals.

Facebooktwittermail