>The way I read that (and combined with the overall disclosures that they are basically collecting everything they can get their hands on) the NSA has now been de-militarised, or civilianised if you prefer that term. In the sense that, information regarding criminal activity is now being shared with the FBI & friends. Routinely, albeit secretly and deniably.
The NSA became "demilitarised" that is, involved in civilian law enforcement, when it stopped being the AFSA (Armed Forces Security Agency) and the NSA was "created" in 1952. But even prior to that in it's earlier form as the AFSA, ASA, and etc, the NSA did some civil law enforcement work with the FBI. For example Project Shamrock which started in 1945 (seven years before the AFSA became the NSA) involved: "Intercepted messages were disseminated to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, > Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), and the Department of > Defense." Earlier forms of the NSA were also involved in cryptanalysis of pirate radio stations and prohibition era "booze barons". The case of their abuses was Project MINARET 1967-1975 which spied on US citizens that suspected of being dissidents or involved in drug smuggling. This information was passed on to the FBI and local law enforcement. Project MINARET that uses “watch lists” to electronically and physically > spy on “subversive” activities by civil rights and antiwar leaders such as > Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Jane Fonda, Malcolm X, Dr. Benjamin Spock, and > Joan Baez—all members of Richard Nixon’s infamous “enemies list.” The NSA has been a civil law enforcement organisation in practice if not always in principal since before it's inception (its charter broadened its role beyond its previous role as a military support organisation). On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:30 AM, ianG <i...@iang.org> wrote: > On 29/06/13 13:23 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/**world/2013/jun/17/edward-**snowden-nsa-files- >> **whistleblower<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower> >> >> One of the most interesting things to fall out of this entire ordeal is >> that we now have a new threat model that regular users will not merely >> dismiss as paranoid. They may want to believe it *isn't* true or that >> policy has changed to stop these things - there is a lot of wishful >> thinking to be sure. Still such users will not however believe >> reasonably that everyone in the world follows those policies, even if >> their own government may follow those policies. >> > > > Yes, but I don't think the penny has yet dropped. > > One of the things that disturbed me was the several references of how they > deal with the material collected. I don't think this is getting enough > exposure, so I'm laying my thoughts out here. > > There is a lot of reference to analysts poking around and deciding if they > want that material or not, as the sole apparent figleaf of a warrant. But > there was also reference to *evidence of a crime* : > > http://www.cnsnews.com/news/**article/intelligence-chief-** > defends-internet-spying-**program<http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/intelligence-chief-defends-internet-spying-program> > —The dissemination of information "incidentally intercepted" about a U.S. > person is prohibited unless it is "necessary to understand foreign > intelligence or assess its importance, *is evidence of a crime* , or > indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm. > > > > The way I read that (and combined with the overall disclosures that they > are basically collecting everything they can get their hands on) the NSA > has now been de-militarised, or civilianised if you prefer that term. In > the sense that, information regarding criminal activity is now being shared > with the FBI & friends. Routinely, albeit secretly and deniably. > > This represents a much greater breach than anything else. We always knew > that the NSA could accidentally harvest stuff, and we always knew that they > could ask GCHQ to spy on Americans in exchange for another favour. As > Snowden said somewhere, the American/foreigner thing is just a distracting > tool used by the NSA to up-sell their goodness to congress. > > What made massive harvesting relatively safe was that they never shared > it, regardless of what it was about, unless it was a serious national > security issue. > > Now the NSA is sharing *criminal* information -- civilian information. To > back this shift up, the information providers reveal: > > http://www.counterpunch.org/**2013/06/20/spying-by-the-**numbers/<http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/20/spying-by-the-numbers/> > > Apple reported receiving 4,000 to 5,000 government requests for > information on customers in just the last six months. From December 1, > 2012 to May 31, 2013 Apple received law enforcement requests for customer > data on 9-10,000 accounts or devices. Most of these requests are *from > police for robberies, missing children* , etc. > > > > Facebook said something similar about missing children, I think. > Elsewhere, someone sued the NSA to reveal information on his whereabouts to > assist his defence against a crime [0]. > > > So we have moved almost full circle from national security to local > crimes. And nobody blinked! The NSA, FISA, administration, FBI, DoJ, > media, google, facebook, apple... everyone really, have not thought this > strange [1]. Indeed, reading the media reports, it's almost as if they are > preparing the American public for a fait accompli. > > The only thing left is civil cases. But we've already seen a number of > elements of that (e.g., l'affair Petraeus) and I suspect it is only a > matter of time before (say) the SEC gets in on the game and uses civil > discovery and civil cases against some scumbag boiler room operation [2]. > > To put this in context, the endgame in civil cases is divorce, which can > already be dressed up as criminal if we add in some claims of assault, etc. > > Do Americans believe the local police and the FBI can show restraint given > the availability of NSA and friends' intel? Use of secret letters? Do > Americans consider that allowing their criminal and civil courts access to > this stuff is a reasonable thing? > > Am I the only one to find the American psyche response to be rather weird? > They seem to be focussing on the breaking of (constitutional) rules, and > saying tut, tut, naughty NSA. Must phone my Congressman. > > But they -- Americans -- seem to be ignoring the real danger writ large to > them, the very reason for those rules. > > > > iang > > ps; to drag this back to crypto, I think crypto can help, and it is > encouraging to see that upswing. But the wider issue here is going to > require a complete rethink of the threat model. > > > > [0] If Apple and Facebook and the rest are accepting secret national > security letters for local crimes, he should get that info. Perhaps EFF > should file a "friends of the court" brief arguing that we are now in a > society where civilians are now entitled to the NSA's support. But I > digress... > > [1] This is without even considering the twin corruptions of the > policing forces, being (1) war on drugs, and (2) the profit-making inherent > in asset seizures. > > [2] The SEC typically uses civil cases not criminal cases because the bar > of evidence is lower. But they act "as if" it is criminal prosecution. > ______________________________**_________________ > cryptography mailing list > cryptography@randombit.net > http://lists.randombit.net/**mailman/listinfo/cryptography<http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography> >
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
