HOW & WHO IS SPYING ON US/YOU!

'AT&T Gave Your Data to Feds'

and so did Verizon.....

To see how big carriers could control the online world, you must understand its structure
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/internet_spying.htm

ABA Blasts the Specter NSA Bill-Calls for Congress to Wake Up!
By: John Amato on Saturday, July 22nd, 2006 at 1:43 PM - PDT UPDATE: 5/11/06

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-109srpt369/html/CRPT-109srpt369.htm


BCST 8/27/06
C-SPAN BOOK TV - 9/11 COMMISSION INTERVIEW
9/11 ACCOUNTABILTY Vs. "The Case For Impeachment"
AUDIO (ABOUT 55 MINUTES)
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L002I060827-911-impeachment2.MP3

9/11 ACCOUNTABILITY....WE WHERE VERY UNJUDGEMENTAL
THE 9/11 COMMISSION....THESE GUYS ARE SHOCKING!!!!
AUDIO:
http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L001I060827-911-impeachment1.MP3


'Climate has changed' for data privacy
By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY

A USA TODAY report Thursday that a U.S. spy agency has been secretly collecting phone-call records of millions of Americans is just the latest case of companies turning over private customer data to the government.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, airlines, websites and Las Vegas hotels have divulged private customer information to federal authorities hunting for terrorists or criminals.

"The climate has changed, and many companies give less weight to the privacy interests of their customers," says David Sobel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

Yet privacy advocates say the new case is more egregious because phone records are afforded even greater protections and the information was obtained without a warrant.

"It's an inexcusable violation of the trust we place in the phone company to maintain the privacy of communications," says Kevin Bankston of advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation. The group sued AT&T in January for aiding the National Security Agency in eavesdropping.

The NSA obtained the call records from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, which are working under contract with the NSA, USA TODAY reported. Qwest refused to turn over its information out of legal concerns. The NSA did not get approval from a special court set up to OK electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists.

It's unclear whether the government used another legal tool, such as a "national security letter," which allows the FBI to secretly obtain customer records without court approval.

Sobel, though, said national security letters "always have been used fairly surgically" as part of specific investigations.

The Bush administration has argued the USA Patriot Act gives it wide authority to protect citizens. Other customer-data cases:

• The most similar incident occurred after the 2001 attacks, when airlines including American, Delta, JetBlue and Northwest shared millions of passenger records with the government or federal contractors.

Yet the airlines were simply violating their own policies not to disclose customer records, and those promises "were never very clear," says Marc Rotenberg, EPIC's executive director. The Transportation Department dismissed a complaint against Northwest because its policy merely said it would not sell data. It didn't address sharing it with the government.

• When intelligence suggested a possible 2003 New Year's Eve attack in Las Vegas, the government began assembling records of about 270,000 hotel guests and airplane passengers who visited the city Dec. 22 to Jan. 1, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Yet there was no specific and credible terrorist threat, the newspaper said.

• Last year, the Justice Department demanded that AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft MSN and Google hand over customer search records in a bid to prove that filtering software doesn't screen kids from online porn. Only Google refused, and a judge ultimately ruled that the search giant need turn over only 50,000 Web addresses, not the 1 million originally subpoenaed. Also, Justice said the information would not identify individuals.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2006-05-11-biz-privacy-usat_x.htm

==================================================================

Court Filings Tell of Internet Spying
Published: April 7, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 6 — A former AT&T technician said on Thursday that the company cooperated with the National Security Agency in 2003 to install equipment capable of "vacuum-cleaner surveillance" of e-mail messages and other Internet traffic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/us/nationalspecial3/07spy.html?ex=1145160000&en=d6b8d8cd5e397cdc&ei=5070

Quote


 
“Not only is the NSA's spying program unauthorized by federal law, but we suspect that conversations of thousands of Americans have been subjected to illegal surveillance by the NSA.”

Dave Fidanque, executive director
of the ACLU chapter in Oregon
 

 

 

2001: Bush Warned of Tech Dangers
Associated Press Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The nation's electronic intelligence agency warned President Bush in 2001 that monitoring U.S. adversaries would require a "permanent presence" on networks that also carry Americans' messages that are protected from government eavesdropping.
The warning was contained in a National Security Agency report entitled "Transition 2001," sent to Bush shortly after he took office and reflects the agency's major concerns at the time.
The report was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, a private security watchdog group at George Washington University that made the document public.
The papers offer a rare glimpse into the usually publicity-shy NSA, which monitors communications involving foreign targets and does code-making and breaking.
The document showed an agency making a case to the White House that information security should be a top priority. It raised questions about how new global communications technologies were challenging the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says. But, it adds, senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a "powerful, permanent presence" on global telecommunications networks that host both "'protected' communications of Americans" and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target.
The document also said the global nature of technology leaves government and private networks more vulnerable to penetration by enemies. The report said the agency was concerned that federal and private digital networks were now "more vulnerable to foreign intelligence operations and to compromise."
The documents indicate the NSA was going on an offensive using the new modes of communication -- mostly digital and able to carry billions of bits of data. It says the agency is "prepared organizationally, intellectually and -- with sufficient investment -- technologically to exploit in an unprecedented way the explosion of global communications."
NSA was also concerned about the security of its parent agency, the Defense Department. In 1999, the document says, the department experienced over 22,000 cyber attacks, most of which had little effect on operations.
"During the presidential transition period, a major cyber attack is possible," the agency warned. But no significant cyber attack occurred then.
In the 42-page report, the agency said it had tried to transform itself from an entity nicknamed "No Such Agency" by dispatching its director to public events and reaching out to the media. The agency said media representatives were invited inside the agency for family day in September 2000.
Staffing was clearly a concern of the agency. The documents show a sharp drop in civilian personnel after the end of the cold war. In 2001, there were just over 16,000 civilians, down from 22,000 in early 2001. At the time, 19 percent of the work force was eligible for early retirement.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, intelligence agencies have gone on a hiring spree. The NSA announced last April it intended to hire 1,500 new employees a year for the next five years, focusing on people fluent in foreign languages including Arabic and Chinese, intelligence analysts and technical experts.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,66884,00.html


Lawbreaker-in-Chief

Someone needs to tell the President, ignorance of the law is no defense!

Snip)

Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to ignore this relatively insignificant hurdle. The government has been monitoring calls to or from United States citizens to international locations, perhaps eavesdropping on as many as 500 people at any one time, according to the Times.

The surveillance policy is part of a larger Bush administration strategy that includes imprisoning people indefinitely without charges or attorneys in Guantanamo Bay and transporting suspects to countries known to torture, a process the administration calls "rendition." As with these policies, the interceptions are almost certainly illegal.

Statutes prohibit government interceptions of the phone and e-mail conversations of United States citizens unless officials have first sought and obtained court approval, either under the Wiretap Act, for criminal investigations, or under FISA, for national security investigations.

There is no legal justification for these warrantless interceptions, which included calls to and from American citizens.

Nor is there any practical reason. FISA allows the attorney general to approve interceptions in an emergency, and gives up to 72 hours to seek court approval after the fact.

We won't see a special prosecutor appointed to investigate these violations, though Bush has called for the Department of Justice to find out who informed the press of the illegal eavesdropping program. Apparently, informing the public that the NSA broke the law is more troubling to the president than breaking the law in the first place.

Instead, the administration claims that it has the power to ignore the law. Bush cites his authority under the Constitution, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cites Congress' post-9/11 authorization for the administration to use force in combating terrorism. But even Gonzales admits that the resolution authorizing force said nothing about surveillance. He denies that his argument is just a convenient excuse for illegal behavior.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,69886-0.html


IS BUSH ABOVE THE LAW?

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1809  

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

Release date: 2005-03-17
 
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html


NSA hired to scan all the phone calls and internet traffic in the world so Bush can spy on you:
http://www.narus.com/

This is the software they used:
http://www.narus.com/products/intercept.html
"These capabilities include playback of streaming media (i.e. VoIP), rendering of web pages, examination of e-mail and the ability to analyze the payload/attachments of e-mail or file transfer protocols. Narus partner products offer the ability to quickly analyze information collected by the Directed Analysis or Lawful Intercept modules."
They are knowingly licensing this software for unlawful purposes as outlined in this class action law suit filed by the EFF against AT&T. They have secret rooms everywhere. An ex-AT&T employee of 22 years has brought 140 pages of proof and AT&T doesn't deny it.
This company should be sued

NarusInsight Intercept Suite

Packet-level, flow-level, and application-level usage information is captured and analyzed as well as raw user session packets for forensic analysis, surveillance or in satisfying regulatory compliance for lawful intercept.

The Lawful Intercept module offers carriers and service providers compliance with regulatory requirements regarding lawful intercept. The Lawful Intercept module provides an end-to-end solution consisting of Administration, Access and Delivery functions. The Lawful Intercept module is compliant with CALEA and ETSI standards. It can be seamlessly integrated with third party products for testing/validation or as a complete law enforcement solution.

The Directed Analysis module seamlessly integrates with NarusInsight Secure Suite or other DDoS, intrusion or anomaly detection systems, securely providing analysts with real-time, surgical targeting of suspect information (from flow to application to full packets). The Directed Analyis module provides industry standard formats and offers tools for archival and integration with third party investigative tools.

These capabilities include playback of streaming media (i.e. VoIP), rendering of web pages, examination of e-mail and the ability to analyze the payload/attachments of e-mail or file transfer protocols. Narus partner products offer the ability to quickly analyze information collected by the Directed Analysis or Lawful Intercept modules. When Narus partners’ powerful analytic tools are combined with the surgical targeting and real-time collection capabilities of Directed Analysis and Lawful Intercept modules, analysts or law enforcement agents are provided capabilities that have been unavailable thus far.

Customers

Carriers and Governments have deployed Narus around the world protect their countries and infrastructure. http://www.narus.com/products/intercept.html

AT&T's central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco houses a secret room that allows the Natioinal Security Agency to montor phone and internet traffic, according to former AT&T technician-cum-whistleblower Mark Klein.

AT&T occupied three floors of the SBC-owned building on San Francisco's Folsom street.

In addition to this San Francisco office, the NSA operates identical wiretapping facilities at other AT&T switching centers around the county, Klein says.

 

A critical junction for telecommunications traffic, the San Francisco switching center is well guarded -- but presumably an NSA badge will get you past security.

Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room
By Ryan Singel| Also by this reporter
11:15 AM Apr, 07, 2006
AT&T provided National Security Agency eavesdroppers with full access to its customers' phone calls, and shunted its customers' internet traffic to data-mining equipment installed in a secret room in its San Francisco switching center, according to a former AT&T worker cooperating in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against the company.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the EFF's lawsuit this week. That class action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco last January, alleges that AT&T violated federal and state laws by surreptitiously allowing the government to monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants.
On Wednesday, the EFF asked the court to issue an injunction prohibiting AT&T from continuing the alleged wiretapping, and filed a number of documents under seal, including three AT&T documents that purportedly explain how the wiretapping system works.
According to a statement released by Klein's attorney, an NSA agent showed up at the San Francisco switching center in 2002 to interview a management-level technician for a special job. In January 2003, Klein observed a new room being built adjacent to the room housing AT&T's #4ESS switching equipment, which is responsible for routing long distance and international calls.
"I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room," Klein wrote. "The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room."
Klein's job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.
"While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet (AT&T's internet service) circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal," Klein wrote.
The split circuits included traffic from peering links connecting to other internet backbone providers, meaning that AT&T was also diverting traffic routed from its network to or from other domestic and international providers, according to Klein's statement.
The secret room also included data-mining equipment called a Narus STA 6400, "known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets," according to Klein's statement.
Narus, whose website touts AT&T as a client, sells software to help internet service providers and telecoms monitor and manage their networks, look for intrusions, and wiretap phone calls as mandated by federal law.
Klein said he came forward because he does not believe that the Bush administration is being truthful about the extent of its extrajudicial monitoring of Americans' communications.
"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."
After asking for a preview copy of the documents last week, the government did not object to the EFF filing the paper under seal, although the EFF asked the court Wednesday to make the documents public.
One of the documents is titled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco," and is dated 2002. The others are allegedly a design document instructing technicians how to wire up the taps, and a document that describes the equipment installed in the secret room.
In a letter to the EFF, AT&T objected to the filing of the documents in any manner, saying that they contain sensitive trade secrets and could be "could be used to 'hack' into the AT&T network, compromising its integrity."
According to court rules, AT&T has until Thursday to file a motion to keep the documents sealed. The government could also step in to the case and request that the documents not be made public, or even that the entire lawsuit be barred under the seldom-used State Secrets Privilege.
AT&T spokesman Walt Sharp declined to comment on the allegations, citing a company policy of not commenting on litigation or matters of national security, but did say that "AT&T follows all laws following requests for assistance from government authorities."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html

Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/att-complaint.pdf

Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.eff.org/


AT&T Sued Over NSA Eavesdropping
By Ryan Singel | Also by this reporter
16:03 PM Jan, 31, 2006 EST
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on Tuesday, accusing the telecom company of violating federal laws by collaborating with the government's secret, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens' phone and internet usage.
The suit (.pdf), filed by the civil liberties group in federal court in San Francisco, alleges AT&T secretly gave the National Security Agency access to two massive databases that included both the contents of its subscribers' communications and detailed transaction records, such as numbers dialed and internet addresses visited.
"Our goal is to go after the people who are making the government's illegal surveillance possible," says EFF attorney Kevin Bankston. "They could not do what they are doing without the help of companies like AT&T. We want to make it clear to AT&T that it is not in their legal or economic interests to violate the law whenever the president asks them to."
One of AT&T's databases, known as "Hawkeye," contains 312 terabytes of data detailing nearly every telephone communication on AT&T's domestic network since 2001, according to the complaint. The suit also alleges that AT&T allowed the NSA to use the company's powerful Daytona database-management software to quickly search this and other communication databases.
That action violates the First and Fourth amendments to the Constitution, federal wiretapping statutes, telecommunications laws and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, according to the complaint.
The suit, which relies on reporting from the Los Angeles Times, seeks up to $22,000 in damages for each AT&T customer, plus punitive fines.
AT&T did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit comes a little more than a month after The New York Times reported that in 2001, President Bush ordered the NSA to begin warrantless monitoring of Americans' overseas phone calls and internet usage.
The administration defends the eavesdropping program, saying it is only targeting communications to and from suspected terrorists, that government lawyers review the program every 45 days and that Congress authorized the president to track down 9/11 co-conspirators, thereby giving the president the ability to bypass wiretapping laws.
Some Senate Democrats and Republicans, along with civil libertarians and former government officials, counter that the wiretaps are simply illegal and that wiretapping warrants can be acquired easily if the government has probable cause to believe an American is affiliated with terrorists.
The government is not named in the lawsuit, though it is already being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union over the surveillance program.
Bankston estimates that millions of people nationwide would be eligible to join the class action, pushing the possible total fines into the billions. However, he expects the administration will try to kill the lawsuit by invoking the rarely used state secrets privilege.
"If state secrecy can prevent us from preserving the rights of millions upon millions of people, then there is a profound problem with the law," says Bankston.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70126-0.html


AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs
By Ryan Singel| Also by this reporter
11:00 AM Apr, 12, 2006
AT&T is seeking the return of technical documents presented in a lawsuit that allegedly detail how the telecom giant helped the government set up a massive internet wiretap operation in its San Francisco facilities.
In papers filed late Monday, AT&T argued that confidential technical documents provided by an ex-AT&T technician to the Electronic Frontier Foundation shouldn't be used as evidence in the case and should be returned.
The documents, which the EFF filed under a temporary seal last Wednesday, purportedly detail how AT&T diverts internet traffic to the National Security Agency via a secret room in San Francisco and allege that such rooms exist in other AT&T switching centers.
The EFF filed the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Northern California in January, seeking damages from AT&T on behalf of AT&T customers for alleged violation of state and federal laws.
Mark Klein, a former technician who worked for AT&T for 22 years, provided three technical documents, totaling 140 pages, to the EFF and to The New York Times, which first reported last December that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on citizens' phone calls without obtaining warrants.
Klein issued a detailed public statement last week, saying he came forward because he believes the government's extrajudicial spying extended beyond wiretapping of phone calls between Americans and a party with suspected ties to terrorists, and included wholesale monitoring of the nation's internet communications.
AT&T built a secret room in its San Francisco switching station that funnels internet traffic data from AT&T Worldnet dialup customers and traffic from AT&T's massive internet backbone to the NSA, according to a statement from Klein.
Klein's duties included connecting new fiber-optic circuits to that room, which housed data-mining equipment built by a company called Narus, according to his statement.
Narus' promotional materials boast that its equipment can scan billions of bits of internet traffic per second, including analyzing the contents of e-mails and e-mail attachments and even allowing playback of internet phone calls.
While AT&T's open filings did not confirm the details of Klein's statement, they did not dispute the legitimacy of his claims, and the company's filing included a sealed affidavit attesting to the sensitivity of the documents.
The company asked for a hearing Thursday to determine whether the documents could be used in the class-action lawsuit, whether they would be unsealed or whether the EFF would have to return them. The EFF filed a rebuttal, calling that time frame unworkable and accusing AT&T of not following normal court rules.
AT&T's lawyers also told the court that intense press coverage surrounding the case, including Wired News' publication of Klein's statement, was revealing the company's trade secrets, "causing grave injury to AT&T." The lawyers argued that unsealing the documents "would cause AT&T great harm and potentially jeopardize AT&T's network, making it vulnerable to hackers, and worse."
The EFF filed the documents last week under a temporary seal when it asked the judge to force AT&T to stop the alleged internet spying until the case goes to trial.
Klein's statement and documents are the only direct evidence filed so far by the EFF, and without them its case could be weakened.
It is not clear whether AT&T has served legal papers to Klein.
As of last week, Klein was represented by Miles Ehrlich, who until January served as a U.S. attorney in San Francisco, prosecuting white-collar crime. Klein is now also represented by two lawyers from the powerhouse law firm Morrison & Foerster, including James J. Brosnahan, who is best known for representing John Walker Lindh, the Marin County, California, man found fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The EFF declined to comment on the filing, while AT&T did not return a call seeking comment. The case is Hepting v. AT&T.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70650-0.html?tw=rss.index


Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

EPIC Sues NSA Over Snooping
11:00 AM Dec, 06, 1999 EST
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued the National Security Agency to force the release of documents pertaining to alleged NSA surveillance of American citizens.
"The charter of the National Security Agency does not authorize domestic intelligence gathering," EPIC director Marc Rotenberg said in a statement. "Yet we have reason to believe that the NSA is engaged in the indiscriminate acquisition and interception of domestic communications taking place over the Internet."
In the lawsuit, filed on 3 December in the District Court of the District of Columbia, the watchdog group asks for public disclosure of internal NSA documents that discuss the legality of the agency's intelligence activities.
EPIC also plans to evaluate the legal basis for the interception of citizen communications by the NSA in a study to be released early next year. That study will be conducted by a Scottish investigative journalist and TV producer who conducted a similar investigation for the European Parliament.
The European report said there was evidence of the activity of an internationally coordinated project known as Echelon. It produced the the first public documentation of activities akin to a long-suspected global project that monitors citizen communications around the world.
After the National Security Agency refused to provide legal memoranda on citizen surveillance to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year, Representative Porter Goss (R-Florida), chairman of the oversight panel, reprimanded the agency.
NSA's rationale for withholding the memos was "unpersuasive and dubious," Goss wrote in a committee report in May. He noted that if NSA lawyers "construed the Agency's authorities too permissively, then the privacy interests of the citizens of the United States could be at risk."
EPIC's lawsuit follows a previous unsuccessful request to obtain information from the NSA.
EPIC had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NSA for the surveillance documents shortly after the release of the Intelligence Committee report. But the NSA never responded to the request, EPIC said.
The Freedoom of Information Act imposes a time limit of 20 working days for an agency to respond.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,32905,00.html

epic.org
http://www.epic.org/

FOR RELEASE:
Friday, December 3, 1999
     
  LAWSUIT SEEKS MEMOS ON SURVEILLANCE OF AMERICANS;
 EPIC LAUNCHES STUDY OF NSA INTERCEPTION ACTIVITIES
     
WASHINGTON, DC - The Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) today asked a federal court to order the release of
controversial documents concerning potential government
surveillance of American citizens. EPIC's lawsuit seeks the
public disclosure of internal National Security Agency (NSA)
documents discussing the legality of the agency's intelligence
activities.
     
NSA refused to provide the documents to the House Intelligence
Committee earlier this year, resulting in an unusual public
reprimand of the secretive spy agency. Rep. Porter J. Goss,
chairman of the oversight panel, wrote in a committee report in
May that NSA's rationale for withholding the legal memoranda was
"unpersuasive and dubious." He noted that if NSA lawyers
"construed the Agency's authorities too permissively, then the
privacy interests of the citizens of the United States could be
at risk." Soon after the release of the Intelligence Committee
report, EPIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request to NSA for the documents. Despite the FOIA's time limit
of 20 working days, the agency has not responded to EPIC's
request.
     
EPIC Director Marc Rotenberg said "the charter of the National
Security Agency does not authorize domestic intelligence
gathering. Yet we have reason to believe that the NSA is engaged
in the indiscriminate acquisition and interception of domestic
communications taking place over the Internet."
     
The surveillance activities of the NSA have recently come under
increased scrutiny, with published reports indicating that the
agency is coordinating a massive global interception initiative
known as ECHELON. The current issue of the New Yorker magazine
reports that it took NSA only 11 months to fill three years'
worth of planned storage capacity for intercepted Internet
traffic.
     
The legal basis for NSA's interception activities is a critical
issue that EPIC plans to evaluate in a comprehensive study to be
released early next year. That study will be conducted by
Duncan Campbell, a Scottish investigative journalist and TV
producer. Earlier this year, Campbell was appointed a
consultant to the European Parliament and prepared a technology
assessment report on ECHELON and communications intelligence
which contained the first public documentary evidence of the
global surveillance system. Campbell will be working with EPIC
as a Senior Research Fellow for several months to produce
a report for presentation at anticipated congressional hearings
on the topic of signals intelligence agencies, the Fourth
Amendment and human rights.
     
More information on ECHELON is available at the EchelonWatch
website, which is administered by the American Civil Liberties
Union:
     
         http://www.echelonwatch.org 
http://www.epic.org/open_gov/foia/nsa_suit_12_99.html

EPIC Sues for NSA Interception Documents. On December 3, EPIC asked a federal court to order the release of controversial documents concerning potential government surveillance of American citizens. EPIC's lawsuit (PDF) seeks the public disclosure of internal National Security Agency (NSA) documents discussing the legality of the agency's intelligence activities. See the press release for more details, and EPIC's Former Secrets page for examples of other government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.


FBI's "Carnivore Splash Screen" 

Significant New FBI Carnivore Documents Obtained by EPIC (Released January 14, 2005)

Other FBI Carnivore Documents Obtained by EPIC (Released May 24, 2002)


Earlier Material

Analysis of Carnivore documents produced by SecurityFocus.

These documents have been released through a lawsuit EPIC filed against the FBI and the Department of Justice. More information on EPIC's lawsuit is available at the Carnivore FOIA Litigation page.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/foia_documents.html

                                                                       #############################

Former Secrets -- Documents
Released Under the FOIA

EPIC makes frequent use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information from the government about cryptography and privacy policy. Public disclosure of this information improves government oversight and accountability. It also helps ensure that the public is fully informed about the activities of government. The following scanned images (GIFs) are representative of the types of material that EPIC obtains.

Scanned Images of Key Policy Documents

http://www.epic.org/open_gov/FOIA/secrets.html

                                                          ############################


On July 11, 2000, the existence of an FBI Internet monitoring system called "Carnivore" was widely reported. Although the public details were sketchy, reports indicated that the Carnivore system is installed at the facilities of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and can monitor all traffic moving through that ISP. The FBI claims that Carnivore "filters" data traffic and delivers to investigators only those "packets" that they are lawfully authorized to obtain. Because the details remain secret, the public is left to trust the FBI's characterization of the system and -- more significantly -- the FBI's compliance with legal requirements.

One day after the initial disclosures, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking the public release of all FBI records concerning Carnivore, including the source code, other technical details, and legal analyses addressing the potential privacy implications of the technology. On July 18, 2000, after Carnivore had become a major issue of public concern, EPIC asked the Justice Department to expedite the processing of its request. When DOJ failed to respond within the statutory deadline, EPIC filed suit in U.S. District Court seeking the immediate release of all information concerning Carnivore.

At an emergency hearing held on August 2, 2000, U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered the FBI to report back to the court by August 16 and to identify the amount of material at issue and the Bureau's schedule for releasing it. The FBI subsequently reported that 3000 pages of responsive material were located, but it refused to commit to a date for the completion of processing.

In late January 2001, the FBI completed its processing of EPIC's FOIA request. The Bureau revised its earlier estimate and reported that there were 1756 pages of responsive material; 1502 were released in part and 254 were withheld in their entirety (see link below for sample scanned documents).

On August 1, 2001, the FBI moved for summary judgment, asserting that it fully met its obligations under FOIA. On August 9, 2001, EPIC filed a motion to stay further proceedings pending discovery, on the grounds that the FBI has failed to conduct an adequate search for responsive documents.

On March 25, 2002, the court issued an order directing the FBI to initiate a new search for responsive documents. The new search was to be conducted in the offices of General Counsel and Congressional & Public Affairs, and be completed no later than May 24, 2002. The documents listed above were located and released as a result of that court-ordered search.

EPIC Carnivore Documents

Other Resources

http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/


Carnivore Details Emerge
Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus 2000-10-04
A web spying capability, multi-million dollar price tag, and a secret Carnivore ancestor are some of the details to poke through heavy FBI editing.
“ Carnivore is remarkably tolerant of network aberration, such a speed change, data corruption and targeted smurf type attacks. ”
FBI report WASHINGTON--The FBI's Carnivore surveillance tool monitors more than just email. Newly declassified documents obtained by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Carnivore can monitor all of a target user's Internet traffic, and, in conjunction with other FBI tools, can reconstruct web pages exactly as a surveillance target saw them while surfing the web. The capability is one of the new details to emerge from some six-hundred pages of heavily redacted documents given to the Washington-based nonprofit group this week, and reviewed by SecurityFocus Wednesday. The documents confirm that Carnivore grew from an earlier FBI project called Omnivore, but reveal for the first time that Omnivore itself replaced a still older tool. The name of that project was carefully blacked out of the documents, and remains classified "secret." The older surveillance system had "deficiencies that rendered the design solution unacceptable." The project was eventually shut down. Development of Omnivore began in February 1997, and the first prototypes were delivered on October 31st of that year. The FBI's eagerness to use the system may have slowed its development: one report notes that it became "difficult to maintain the schedule," because the Bureau deployed the nascent surveillance tool for "several emergency situations" while it was still in beta release. "The field deployments used development team personnel to support the technical challenges surrounding the insertion of the OMNIVORE device," reads the report. The 'Phiple Troenix' Project In September 1998, the FBI network surveillance lab in Quantico launched a project to move Omnivore from Sun's Solaris operating system to a Windows NT platform. "This will facilitate the miniaturization of the system and support a wide range of personal computer (PC) equipment," notes the project's Statement of Need. (Other reasons for the switch were redacted from the documents.) The project was called "Phiple Troenix"--apparently a spoonerism of "Triple Phoenix," a type of palm tree--and its result was dubbed "Carnivore." Phiple Troenix's estimated price tag of $800,000 included training for personnel at the Bureau's Washington-based National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC). Meanwhile, the Omnivore project was formally closed down in June 1999, with a final cost of $900,000. Carnivore came out of beta with version 1.2, released in September 1999. As of May 2000, it was in version 1.3.4. At that time it underwent an exhaustive series of carefully prescribed tests under a variety of conditions. The results, according to a memo from the FBI lab, were positive. "Carnivore is remarkably tolerant of network aberration, such a speed change, data corruption and targeted smurf type attacks.
The FBI can configure the tool to store all traffic to or from a particular Internet IP address, while monitoring DHCP and RADIUS protocols to track a particular user. In "pen mode," in which it implements a limited type of surveillance not requiring a wiretap warrant, Carnivore can capture all packet header information for a targeted user, or zero in on email addresses or FTP login data. Web Surveillance Version 2.0 will include the ability to display captured Internet traffic directly from Carnivore. For now, the tool only stores data as raw packets, and another application called "Packeteer" is later used to process those packets. A third program called "CoolMiner" uses Packeteer's output to display and organize the intercepted data. Collectively, the three applications, Carnivore, Packeteer and CoolMiner, are referred to by the FBI lab as the "DragonWare suite." The documents show that in tests, CoolMiner was able to reconstruct HTTP traffic captured by Carnivore into coherent web pages, a capability that would allow FBI agents to see the pages exactly as the user saw them while surfing the web. Justice Department and FBI officials have testified that Carnivore is used almost exclusively to monitor email, but noted that it was capable of monitoring messages sent over web-based email services like Hotmail. An "Enhanced Carnivore" contract began in November 1999, the papers show, and will run out in January of next year at a total cost of $650,000. Some of the documents show that the FBI plans to add yet more features to version 2.0 and 3.0 of the surveillance tool, but the details are almost entirely redacted. A document subject to particularly heavy editing shows that the FBI was interested in voice over IP technology, and was in particular looking at protocols used by Net2Phone and FreeTel. EPIC attorney David Sobel said the organization intends to challenge the FBI's editing of the released documents. In the meantime, EPIC is hurriedly scanning in the pages and putting them on the web, "so that the official technical review is not the only one," explained Sobel. "We want an unofficial review with as wide a range of participants as possible." The FBI's next release of documents is scheduled for mid-November.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/97


Tuesday, January 17, 2006

ACLU sues NSA

"This just in, and I think it's very exciting: in honor of Martin Luther King Jr Day, the FBI has just announced that, just for today, they're going to spy on all Americans." Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show (1/16/06)

So, it seems that the FBI has actually been quite disgruntled with the NSA policy of widespread domestic surveillance and the vast quantity of pointless post-9/11 leads that the Agency was required to follow up on, which have led to "dead-ends or innocent Americans." In today's New York Times article, an unamed official noted that FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has raised questions about "the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants."

We at the ACLU have a few questions about this as well, as do Greenpeace, Council on American-Islamic Relations and five journalists and scholars

"who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East [and] believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program."

These organizations are the named plaintiffs in the ACLU's suit against the NSA, which was announced today and is profiled in another New York Times article. The Center for Constitutional Rights has also announced that they're bringing a suit against the NSA, on behalf of "four lawyers at the center and a legal assistant there who work on terrorism-related cases at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and overseas."

http://aclupa.blogspot.com/2006/01/aclu-sues-nsa.html


Verizon Faces New $20B Suit over NSA Spying Complicity
February 24, 2006
Upping the ante in what may be a high-stakes legal battle, an Upstate New York lawyer filed a $20 billion class-action lawsuit against Verizon last week, charging that the company violated customer confidentiality in aiding warrantless eavesdropping by a federal spy agency.
The civil suit is the second to challenge corporations for helping the National Security Agency carry out a secret order by the president to spy on communications between people in the United States and parties overseas without first obtaining warrants.
The New York Times first revealed the existence of the NSA surveillance program in December. The Bush administration continues to defend it as a necessary and permissible tool in the "war on terror," but most legal scholars who have addressed the matter disagree with the administration’s interpretation of executive privileges.
In a statement announcing the suit last Friday, lawyer Michael S. Pascazi in Fishkill, New York called the NSA program "the largest invasion of privacy ever devised." Citing media reports, Pascazi alleged that Verizon provided the spy agency with communications records of customers and non-customers alike, violating consumer trust and numerous laws. The suit was filed on behalf of all people who have used Verizon facilities to communicate while the NSA program had access to Verizon’s databases.
In addition to allowing the NSA to tap into its communications lines, the suit alleges that Verizon continues to provide "unfettered" access to its massive databases containing communication records. Pascazi is asking for $20 billion in damages.
As previously reported by The NewStandard, at the end of January, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a similar suit against AT&T, alleging, in part, that the telecommunications giant is acting in "collaboration" with the NSA in what EFF lawyer Kevin Bankston termed "the biggest fishing expedition ever devised."
The two lawsuits join parallel efforts by three groups seeking court orders to halt the program. Shortly after the surveillance efforts were revealed, the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Privacy Information Clearinghouse and Center for Constitutional Rights filed separate suits against the administration.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2855


CCR Files Suit over NSA Domestic Spying Program
Center for Constitutional Rights Believes Privileged Attorney-Client Communications Were Intercepted by NSA without Warrants
In New York, on January 17, 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit against President George W. Bush, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA’s surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization. The suit seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless surveillance of communications in the U.S. CCR filed the suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit the criteria described by the Attorney General for targeting under the NSA Surveillance Program.
As has been widely reported, for over four years the NSA, with the approval of the president, has engaged in a program of widespread warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and emails in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The suit argues that the NSA Surveillance Program violates a clear criminal law, exceeds the president's authority under Article II of the Constitution, and violates the First and Fourth Amendments. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act explicitly authorizes foreign intelligence electronic surveillance only upon orders issued by federal judges on a special court. It expressly authorizes warrantless wiretapping only for the first fifteen days of a war, and makes it a crime to engage in wiretapping without specific statutory authority. Rather than seeking to amend this statute, the president simply violated it by authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans without statutory authority or court approval. As a result, the President violated his oath of office to take care that the laws of this nation are faithfully executed, and instead secretly violated a criminal prohibition duly enacted by Congress.
CCR has been one of the most active opponents of the illegal detention, torture and intelligence gathering practices this administration instituted in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. As part of its mission to fight violations of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the Center for Constitutional Rights represents hundreds of men detained indefinitely without charge as "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay; Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen accused of al Qaeda ties and rendered from the United States to Syria for the purpose of being tortured; and Muslim immigrants unreasonably and wrongfully detained in the U.S. for months without probable cause or criminal charges in the wake of 9/11.
In the course of representing these clients, the Center's lawyers have engaged in innumerable telephone calls and e-mails with people outside the United States, including their clients, their clients' families and outside lawyers, potential witnesses, and others. Given that the government has accused many of CCR's overseas clients of being associated with Al Qaeda or of interest to the 9/11 investigation, there is little question that these attorneys have been subject to the NSA Surveillance Program. The Center filed today's lawsuit in order to protect CCR attorneys' right to represent their clients free of unlawful and unchecked surveillance.
CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said, "On this, the day following Martin Luther King Day, we are saddened that the illegal electronic surveillance that once targeted that great American has again become characteristic of our present government. As was the case with Dr. King, this illegal activity is cloaked in the guise of national security. In reality, it reflects an attempt by the Bush Administration to exercise unchecked power without the inconvenient interference of the other co-equal branches of government."
According to CCR attorney Shayana Kadidal, "The mere existence of the program harms CCR and our attorneys because it serves to inhibit their ability to institute and effectively litigate these suits."
The Center for Constitutional Rights is represented in the suit by CCR attorneys Bill Goodman, Shayana Kadidal, and Michael Ratner, and CCR cooperating attorney David Cole. Also appearing as an attorney for CCR, is Professor Michael Avery, president of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), on behalf of the NLG.
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=IahVzRA3n9&Content=693

                                                           ############################

CCR Files Suit over NSA Domestic Spying Program
Center for Constitutional Rights Believes Privileged Attorney-Client Communications Were Intercepted by NSA without Warrants
In New York, on January 17, 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit against President George W. Bush, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA’s surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization. The suit seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless surveillance of communications in the U.S. CCR filed the suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit the criteria described by the Attorney General for targeting under the NSA Surveillance Program.
As has been widely reported, for over four years the NSA, with the approval of the president, has engaged in a program of widespread warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and emails in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The suit argues that the NSA Surveillance Program violates a clear criminal law, exceeds the president's authority under Article II of the Constitution, and violates the First and Fourth Amendments. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act explicitly authorizes foreign intelligence electronic surveillance only upon orders issued by federal judges on a special court. It expressly authorizes warrantless wiretapping only for the first fifteen days of a war, and makes it a crime to engage in wiretapping without specific statutory authority. Rather than seeking to amend this statute, the president simply violated it by authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans without statutory authority or court approval. As a result, the President violated his oath of office to take care that the laws of this nation are faithfully executed, and instead secretly violated a criminal prohibition duly enacted by Congress.
CCR has been one of the most active opponents of the illegal detention, torture and intelligence gathering practices this administration instituted in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. As part of its mission to fight violations of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the Center for Constitutional Rights represents hundreds of men detained indefinitely without charge as "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay; Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen accused of al Qaeda ties and rendered from the United States to Syria for the purpose of being tortured; and Muslim immigrants unreasonably and wrongfully detained in the U.S. for months without probable cause or criminal charges in the wake of 9/11.
In the course of representing these clients, the Center's lawyers have engaged in innumerable telephone calls and e-mails with people outside the United States, including their clients, their clients' families and outside lawyers, potential witnesses, and others. Given that the government has accused many of CCR's overseas clients of being associated with Al Qaeda or of interest to the 9/11 investigation, there is little question that these attorneys have been subject to the NSA Surveillance Program. The Center filed today's lawsuit in order to protect CCR attorneys' right to represent their clients free of unlawful and unchecked surveillance.
CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said, "On this, the day following Martin Luther King Day, we are saddened that the illegal electronic surveillance that once targeted that great American has again become characteristic of our present government. As was the case with Dr. King, this illegal activity is cloaked in the guise of national security. In reality, it reflects an attempt by the Bush Administration to exercise unchecked power without the inconvenient interference of the other co-equal branches of government."
According to CCR attorney Shayana Kadidal, "The mere existence of the program harms CCR and our attorneys because it serves to inhibit their ability to institute and effectively litigate these suits."
The Center for Constitutional Rights is represented in the suit by CCR attorneys Bill Goodman, Shayana Kadidal, and Michael Ratner, and CCR cooperating attorney David Cole. Also appearing as an attorney for CCR, is Professor Michael Avery, president of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), on behalf of the NLG.

NSA Complaint (PDF)150KB
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/NSAcomplaintFINAL11706.pdf
CRS Report: Authorization of Military Force in Response to September 11th Attacks: A Legislative History (PDF)42Kb
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/NSA_CRS_Memo2.pdf
CSR Report: Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information (PDF)380Kb
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/NSA_CRS_Memo1.pdf

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/govt_misconduct/govtArticle.asp?ObjID=RovrtPD8Bc&Content=694


April 13, 2006

AOL Censors Email Tax Opponents

Won’t Deliver Emails Mentioning www.DearAOL.com

UPDATE After this press release was sent out Thursday afternoon, AOL stopped blocking email with links to www.DearAOL.com . Officials at the company stated that problems of this nature generally take three to five working days to fix. However, this was fixed after 24 hours of undeliverability - and approximately twenty minutes after this press release was widely distributed. This incident only increases our worry about organizations who don't have the ability to seek instant press attention. The next time AOL's anti-spam filters fail for a small organization – or one without political muscle – will they move so quickly to fix them? Or will they push organizations to just sign up with Goodmail and pay to avoid the problem?

San Francisco - AOL is blocking delivery to AOL customers of all emails that include a link to www.DearAOL.com. Today, over 100 people who signed a petition to AOL tried sending messages to their AOL-using friends, and received a bounce-back message informing them that their email "failed permanently."

"The fact is, ISPs like AOL commonly make these kinds of arbitrary decisions – silently banning huge swathes of legitimate mail on the flimsiest of reasons – every day, and no one hears about it," said Danny O'Brien, Activism Coordinator of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "AOL's planned CertifiedEmail system would let them profit from this power by offering to charge legitimate mailers to bypass these malfunctioning filters."

After reports of undelivered email started rolling in to the DearAOL.com Coalition, MoveOn co-founder Wes Boyd decided to see for himself if it was true.

"I tried to email my brother-in-law about DearAOL.com and AOL sent me a response as if he had disappeared," said Boyd. "But when I sent him an email without the DearAOL.com link, it went right through."

While AOL may imply that censoring www.DearAOL.com is part of some anti-spam effort, their own customers are witnessing how faulty AOL's spam measures would be if that were the case.

"I forwarded www.DearAOL.com to my own AOL account and it was censored. Apparently I can't even tell myself about it," said Kelly Tessitore from Framingham, Massachusetts.

"This proves the DearAOL.com Coalition's point entirely: left to their own devices, AOL will always put its own self-interest ahead of the public interest in a free and open Internet," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization working on media reform and Internet policy issues. "AOL wants us to believe they won't hurt free email when their pay-to-send system is up and running. But if AOL is willing to censor the flow of information now to silence their critics, how could anyone trust that they will preserve the free and open Internet down the road? Their days of saying 'trust us' are over – their credibility is zero, zip, nada."

The DearAOL.com Coalition represents over 15 million people combined – and has grown from 50 member organizations to 600 in a month. Since the beginning of the DearAOL.com campaign, more than 350,000 Internet users have signed letters to AOL opposing its pay to send proposal. Coalition members include craigslist founder Craig Newmark, the Association of Cancer Online Resources, EFF, Free Press, the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Gun Owners of America, and others.

For more on the issues surrounding pay-to-send email, join EFF for a debate on April 20 in San Francisco. EFF's O'Brien and tech expert Esther Dyson will face off over the question "Email - Should the Sender Pay?" Entrepreneur Mitch Kapor will moderate.

More information about the DearAOL.com Coalition:
http://www.dearaol.com

More information on next week's debate:
http://www.eff.org/bayff/aolmail_debate.php

Contacts:

Danny O'Brien
Activism Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
danny@eff.org

Rebecca Jeschke
Media Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
press@eff.org

Posted at 01:57 PM

Digital Copyright Law Hurts Consumers, Scientists, and Competition

EFF Report Highlights More Unintended Consequences in Seven Years of DMCA

San Francisco - In the seven years since Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), examples of the law's impact on legitimate consumers, scientists, and competitors continue to mount. A new report released today from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), "Unintended Consequences: Seven Years Under the DMCA," collects reports of the misuses of the DMCA -- chilling free expression and scientific research, jeopardizing fair use, impeding competition and innovation, and interfering with other laws on the books. The report updates a previous version issued by EFF in 2003.

The report tells the story of the delay of the disclosure of the Sony BMG "rootkit" vulnerabilities on millions of music CDs. The dangerous software flaws were initially discovered by Princeton graduate student J. Alex Halderman. But Halderman delayed sounding the alarm about the security problems for several weeks so he could consult with lawyers about potential violations of the DMCA. The report also details the DMCA's role in impeding RealNetworks from selling digital music to Apple iPod owners, along with other unintended consequences from the DMCA.

"Rather than being used to stop 'piracy,' the DMCA has predominantly been used to threaten and sue legitimate consumers, scientists, publishers, and competitors," said EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann. "This law is not being used as Congress intended, and a review of the past seven years makes it clear that reform is needed."

For "Unintended Consequences: Seven Years Under the DMCA":
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/?f=unintended_consequences.html

For more on EFF and the DMCA:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/

Contact:

Fred von Lohmann
Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
fred@eff.org

Posted at 08:22 AM

 

April 06, 2006

EFF Files Evidence in Motion to Stop AT&T's Dragnet Surveillance

Internal AT&T Documents Had Been Temporarily Held Back Due To Government's Concerns

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on Wednesday filed the legal briefs and evidence supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction in its class-action lawsuit against AT&T. After asking EFF to hold back the documents so that it could review them, the Department of Justice consented to EFF's filing them under seal -- a well-established procedure that prohibits public access and permits only the judge and the litigants to see the evidence. While not a party to the case, the government was concerned that even this procedure would not provide sufficient security and has represented to the Court that it is "presently considering whether and, if so, how it will participate in this case."

"The evidence that we are filing supports our claim that AT&T is diverting Internet traffic into the hands of the NSA wholesale, in violation of federal wiretapping laws and the Fourth Amendment," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "More than just threatening individuals' privacy, AT&T's apparent choice to give the government secret, direct access to millions of ordinary Americans' Internet communications is a threat to the Constitution itself. We are asking the Court to put a stop to it now."

EFF's evidence regarding AT&T's dragnet surveillance of its networks includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents. This evidence was bolstered and explained by the expert opinion of J. Scott Marcus, who served as Senior Advisor for Internet Technology to the Federal Communications Commission from July 2001 until July 2005.

The internal AT&T documents and portions of the supporting declarations have been submitted to the Court under a tentative seal, a procedure that allows AT&T five court days to explain to the Court why the information should be kept from the public.

"The public deserves to know about AT&T's illegal program," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "In an abundance of caution, we are providing AT&T with an opportunity to explain itself before this material goes on the public docket, but we believe that justice will ultimately require full disclosure."

The NSA program came to light in December, when the New York Times reported that the President had authorized the agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications inside the United States without the authorization of any court. Over the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the NSA program has been intercepting and analyzing millions of Americans' communications, with the help of the country's largest phone and Internet companies, including AT&T.

"Mark Klein is a true American hero," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "He has bravely come forward with information critical for proving AT&T's involvement with the government's invasive surveillance program."

In the lawsuit, EFF is representing the class of all AT&T residential customers nationwide. Working with EFF in the lawsuit are the law firms Traber & Voorhees, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and the Law Office of Richard R. Wiebe.

For the notice of motion for preliminary injunction:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/NotMot.pdf

For the motion to lodge under temporary seal:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/MotionReSealing.pdf

For more on EFF's suit:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

Contacts:

Derek Slater
Acting Media Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
derek@eff.org

For Mark Klein:
Miles Ehrlich, Esq.
Ramsey & Ehrlich
miles@ramsey-ehrlich.com

[Note, 04/07 - J. Scott Marcus' title corrected.]

Posted at 12:01 AM

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#004538


Just click "search" for more information on NSA Spying:

Google
 
Web www.apfn.org
www.apfn.net

To see how big carriers could control the online world, you must understand its structure
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/internet_spying.htm

Treason Under the Constitution
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/treason_5.htm

Carnivore FOIA Documents
http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/foia_documents.html

Internet CENSORSHIP
http://nsascum.50megs.com

Impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the Constitution of the United States
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/impeach_bush.htm


Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Bush_spy.htm 

George Orwell's 1984
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/1984.htm 

APFN POGO RADIO YOUR WAY
http://www.apfn.net/pogo.htm 

Citizen's Rule Book 44 pages
Download here: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf  

SATELLITE SPYING? "ECHELON"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/echelon.htm 

"Radar flashlight" lets cops spot people through walls
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/radar.htm 

PROFILING
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/profile.htm 

Documents Show FBI Web Surveillance
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/surveillance.htm 

Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm 

The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Declar_Constit_Bill-of-Rights.htm 

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/phenry.htm 

AMERICAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
http://apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm 

The Secret oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm 

Secret Court - Secret Laws
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretcourts.htm 

Original 13th Amendment
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm 

Knighthood
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm 

THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm 

Secrets of the Federal Reserve and the London Connection
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm 

Police searches & Seizures
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/search&seize.htm 

Police State
http://ww.apfn.org/apfn/policestate.htm 

The truth about the United Nations!
http://ww.apfn.org/apfn/un.htm 

The United Nations plans to CONFISCATE your profit and ---.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/united_nations.htm 

Government has its eye on your money !
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gov_eye.htm 

It's Time to Circle The Wagons
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/money.htm 

While the sheep are sleeping, the predators move in.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/sheep.htm 

GLOBE BUSH'S-SECRET-BREAKDOWN
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/breakdown.htm 

Drone aircraft may prowl U.S. skies
http://news.com.com/Drone+aircraft+may+prowl+U.S.+skies/2100-11746_3-6055658.html

**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

 

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net workers...."

APFN Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

E-Mail: apfn@apfn.org