More AT&T spying allegation

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary: George P. Bush, deputy assistant secretary for US-VISIT.The DHS's $1.7 billion United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program is responsible for documenting all foreign travelers through use of fingerprints and digital photographs, as well as checking their names against criminal records and watch lists of suspected terrorists. However, because the program is not effective at locating illegal immigrants who have recently arrived in the country or those who have left, the DHS is now proposing to spend an additional $200 million
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,755
For Your Eyes Only?

This week, NOW reports on new evidence suggesting the existence of a secret government program that intercepts millions of private e-mails each day in the name of terrorist surveillance. News about the alleged program came to light when a former AT&T employee, Mark Klein, blew the whistle on what he believes to be a large-scale installation of secret Internet monitoring equipment deep inside AT&T's San Francisco office. The equipment, he contends, was created at the request of the U.S. government to spy on e-mail traffic across the entire Internet. Though the government and AT&T refuse to address the issue directly, Klein backs up his charges with internal company documents and personal photos.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Nancy Hollander, who represents several Muslim-Americans, feels her confidential e-mails are anything but secure. "I've personally never been afraid of my government until now. And now I feel personally afraid that I could be locked up tomorrow," she told NOW.

Who might be eyeing the hundreds of millions of e-mails Americans send out each day, and to what end? [continued with video of segment]
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/307/index.html

This is just more of the same. If these guys are doing what it appears that they are doing, I want heads to roll and the conspirators jailed.

Even attorney client privilege is not protected? I want to see that one justified in front of the Supreme Court. If true, this is nothing less than an enemy attack on the American people and the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/307/index.html

This is just more of the same. If these guys are doing what it appears that they are doing, I want heads to roll and the conspirators jailed.

Even attorney client privilege is not protected? I want to see that one justified in front of the Supreme Court. If true, this is nothing less than an enemy attack on the American people and the Constitution.
Josef Stalin is smiling at the successes of Bush, Cheney, and their neocon cohort.
 
  • #3
turbo-1 said:
Josef Stalin is smiling at the successes of Bush, Cheney, and their neocon cohort.
I didn't watch the video: did it really say that? I'm glad I didn't waste my time, then.
 
  • #4
That was "originally posted by turbo-1", not by PBS-Now. C'mon hurkyl; you can distinguish between the report and the reaction!
 
  • #5
I saw this tonight on pbs, rather sad that its come to this.
 
  • #6
Gokul43201 said:
That was "originally posted by turbo-1", not by PBS-Now. C'mon hurkyl; you can distinguish between the report and the reaction!
And if it's purely a reaction, then it's a rather fallacious one. I'd rather not make that assumption immediately, even though it's the most plausible hypothesis.
 
  • #7
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/307/index.html

This is just more of the same. If these guys are doing what it appears that they are doing, I want heads to roll and the conspirators jailed.

Even attorney client privilege is not protected? I want to see that one justified in front of the Supreme Court. If true, this is nothing less than an enemy attack on the American people and the Constitution.
Ivan, use PGP then even if they are doing this they won't be able to decrypt your emails.

As they say an unencrypted email is like a post card
 
  • #8
The secret service do that over here as well, in fact they've been doing it since the technology existed, I'd be surprised if most countries don't do something similar, including monitoring phone calls for key words etc.

The difference is "we" don't know about it. It's not a breach of our civil rights because they secret service does not have to disclose its operations, and neither do we have those civil rights anyway.:smile: Big Brother is watching you...

Go out and buy a copy of Catcher in the Rye, then make a phone call talking about a) drugs b)terror c) Islam or all three; then send several emails with the words dirty nuke, high explosives and I hate the Kufir, preferably if you could write or speak in Arabic as well that would be neat too. Brighten up an otherwise dull civil servants day:tongue2: :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Anttech what is pgp?
 
  • #10
trajan22 said:
Anttech what is pgp?
Pretty Good Privacy is an encryption program.
 
  • #11
My biggest problem with this and other multi billion dollar so called security programs is that there is no guarantee that they do anything other than enrich the companies to whom the jobs are contracted.

The VISIT program is a good example.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security's program for identifying illegal immigrants and terrorists is unable to locate foreign nationals inside the U.S. or determine if they ever leave the country, a senior homeland-security official said Friday.
The DHS's $1.7 billion United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program is responsible for documenting all foreign travelers through use of fingerprints and digital photographs, as well as checking their names against criminal records and watch lists of suspected terrorists.

Started in January 2004, US-VISIT has succeeded in recording the arrivals of travelers in the U.S., said Robert Mocny, the program's acting director.
But Mocny acknowledged in testimony before members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security that US-VISIT still is unable to determine when, or if, visitors leave the country, a goal set for the program at its creation.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/169664 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
First, it's only AT&T Worldnet e-mail servers. AT&T doesn't have the ability to do this across the internet.

Use PGP if you're woried.
 
  • #13
I'm worried about my Constitution and my country, not my emails.
 
  • #14
Me, I'm just waiting for the installation of vidcams at every intersection, in every school classroom, and meeting halls everywhere.

The one thing I lose sleep over is the future of the net. Once access to all but mainstream sites either costs a premium or occurs at a crawl, than our one gleaming hope for the future is dashed. I personally believe that preserving the net is our top priority.
 
  • #15
I also believe that the internet, and above all, a free flowing internet, is a key component in achieving world peace. Google's cop-out in China really ****** me off.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
I also believe that the internet, and above all, a free flowing internet, is a key component in achieving world peace. Google's cop-out in China really ****** me off.

Agreed so how to keep it free from political and economic forces is the issue. In a worst case scenario where wire based access, becomes restricted, I suppose we could all install dishes, but its the same problem all over again: 97% of the pop has access to an extension of corporate media, and see no reason to expand their options. The remainder talk to ourselves. I'd like to see this become a major campaign issue for 2008. Have no idea how.
 
  • #17
The internet is a large group of "for profit" telecom carriers that all interconnect to allow what appears to be a worlwide "internet".

Truth is, if one or more of these global carriers were to decide to drop out, the internet would collapse. This isn't a government subsidized computer network. This is private industry allowing this.

Now they adhere to some guidelines, but they can just decide to pull out at any time. Thousands of smaller ISP's have dropped out at one time or another stranding their customers without internet access.
I'm personally against Verizon and AT&T's greedy push to try to get end users to double pay for certain types of internet access.

Will they cut off home users and just deal with commercial users, maybe. Some companies like Level 3 have already made that decision, they only go after large business to business accounts.
 
  • #18
Anttech said:
Ivan, use PGP then even if they are doing this they won't be able to decrypt your emails.

As they say an unencrypted email is like a post card

i assumed that most of the companies in the usa that make encryption software gave back-door access to national intelligence or security agencies like NSA anyway. i can't see bush allowing an american company produce encryption software that would let terrorists co-ordinate over e-mail
 
  • #19
(off topic)

Ivan Seeking said:
I also believe that the internet, and above all, a free flowing internet, is a key component in achieving world peace. Google's cop-out in China really ****** me off.

everyone gave google a hard time for not taking a moral stand for free speech, but yet there are thousands of companies that consider the bottom line before any moral implications and that's just considered the way business is done. the sale of small arms to third world countries is often a vary shady business, but who cares?
 
  • #20
devil-fire said:
the sale of small arms to third world countries is often a vary shady business, but who cares?
Yes, and we should remember that "small arms" generally equates (at a minimum) to fully automatic shoulder-fired weapons with a high rate of fire. As long as they are in other countries, they are "small arms" but if they are in the US, they are really nasty, bad MACHINE GUNS (in big bold type). Our government reserves to itself (with few, highly regulated, expensive exceptions) the right to possesses such weapons, while exporting mines, rocket-propelled grenades, cluster bombs, etc all over the world. Apparently, US citizens are not to be trusted, although Swiss nationals of military-service age are required to keep fully-automatic rifles and ammunition in their homes... hmmm.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
devil-fire said:
i assumed that most of the companies in the usa that make encryption software gave back-door access to national intelligence or security agencies like NSA anyway. i can't see bush allowing an american company produce encryption software that would let terrorists co-ordinate over e-mail
You assume wrong, its a open sourced method of using Asymmetrical encryption on email, and finally it wasnt developed in your country!

NSA can't crack asymmetrical encryption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_key_encryption
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Truth is, if one or more of these global carriers were to decide to drop out, the internet would collapse.
I don't think any telco has that power. The internet is dynamic, if one teleco pulls out, the IP routing tables would reconverge and new paths would appear. It was part of the remit of TCP/IP when it was being developed by the DOD, and especially the BGP routing protocol.

If you want more technical information on how and why this happens, feel free to ask.
 
  • #23
Anttech said:
I don't think any telco has that power. The internet is dynamic, if one teleco pulls out, the IP routing tables would reconverge and new paths would appear. It was part of the remit of TCP/IP when it was being developed by the DOD, and especially the BGP routing protocol.

If you want more technical information on how and why this happens, feel free to ask.
If a MAJOR carrier in a country were to pull out, there would be a MAJOR disruption. New peering agreements would need to be arranged, peering is where one ISP hands off traffic to another ISP, without this, internet user A can't connect to user B, a lot of smaller ISP's that resell access through the major carrier would completely lose access to the internet. This is exactly what happened when Level 3 cut off Cogent. Luckily Cogent is tiny.

"According to CEO Dave Schaeffer, both Cogent Communications and Level 3 remain in compliance with the peering agreement. But as of several days ago, no traffic has been traded between the two networks, cutting off customers that rely on a direct connection between Level 3 and Cogent (Karl Bode of Broadband Reports points out that you can read Cogent's side of the story here, with regular updates).

In our opinion, peering agreements are handshake deals that stitch the Internet together, subject to the whim of the parties to each agreement. A broken peering agreement severs the internet, threatening the foundation of the Internet economy. These handshake deals show why lawyers are an important part of business—it's their job to plan ahead for problems when negotiating a deal. We believe that many peering agreements were not written by lawyers."


http://www.isp-planet.com/business/2005/cogent_level_3.html [Broken]

Not only would new peering agreements need to be arranged to re-route traffic around the break, but the major ISP's also own public and private NAPs (buidlings where the backbone routers allow the different carriers to exchange traffic.) The bottlenecks caused by losing a major portion of the internet backbone would slow the internet to a crawl in the affected country or countries.

It's unlikely that a MAJOR carrier would pull out suddenly, because they make too much money, they're more likely to get their way though.

I work for one of the largest Internet Backbone providers, if you want more technical information, feel free to ask. :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
If a MAJOR carrier in a country were to pull out, there would be a MAJOR disruption. New peering agreements would need to be arranged, peering is where one ISP hands off traffic to another ISP, without this, internet user A can't connect to user B, a lot of smaller ISP's that resell access through the major carrier would completely lose access to the internet. This is exactly what happened when Level 3 cut off Cogent. Luckily Cogent is tiny.
BGP protocol is *how* telco's communicate IP routes to different AS's all that would happen is that bgp would reconverge as i explain already. A disruption and the *internet collapsing* are two very different things. If level 3 shut up shop, BT would take over simple as that.

"According to CEO Dave Schaeffer, both Cogent Communications and Level 3 remain in compliance with the peering agreement. But as of several days ago, no traffic has been traded between the two networks, cutting off customers that rely on a direct connection between Level 3 and Cogent (Karl Bode of Broadband Reports points out that you can read Cogent's side of the story here, with regular updates).

In our opinion, peering agreements are handshake deals that stitch the Internet together, subject to the whim of the parties to each agreement. A broken peering agreement severs the internet, threatening the foundation of the Internet economy. These handshake deals show why lawyers are an important part of business—it's their job to plan ahead for problems when negotiating a deal. We believe that many peering agreements were not written by lawyers."

Thats management BS, "severs the internet" that's funny, of course there would be a black hole in the BGP routing table for an hour or two, but that is all. Maybe in America use use static routes, and no redundancy between AS's but the rest of the world doesnt.

I know who you work for and what you do as you have told us many times, however I'll stick to Cisco for my technical info, but hey thanks for the offer :rofl:

The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an interautonomous system routing protocol. An autonomous system is a network or group of networks under a common administration and with common routing policies. BGP is used to exchange routing information for the Internet and is the protocol used between Internet service providers (ISP). Customer networks, such as universities and corporations, usually employ an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) such as RIP or OSPF for the exchange of routing information within their networks. Customers connect to ISPs, and ISPs use BGP to exchange customer and ISP routes. When BGP is used between autonomous systems (AS), the protocol is referred to as External BGP (EBGP). If a service provider is using BGP to exchange routes within an AS, then the protocol is referred to as Interior BGP (IBGP). Figure 39-1 illustrates this distinction.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/bgp.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
You don't understand peering do you? :rolleyes:

BGP won't work if a physical connection is shut off and there is no connection for that ISP. Why do you think the customers lost internet access? Why do you think AOL had to negotiate another provider for the Roadrunner customers connected through Cogent?
 
  • #26
Yes I understand peering, and BGP is logical not physical, it also offers numerous attibutes which allows u to mulithome, and create equal cost paths through transit AS's. You don't understand that do you?

The point i was making which you missed is that everybody is redundant of one another in AS route distrubution. Do you contest that ?
 
  • #27
BGP won't work if a physical connection is shut off and there is no connection for that ISP.

1 word: REDUNDANCY BGP brings that to the table. YOU are talking about the backbone and the internet colasping when telco's pull out, this isn't true. Yes there will be disruption but the Internet will reconverge. Of course customers of that dead telco won't have any internet, that's a no brainer, but the internet colasping? Thats scaremongering and total nonsence
 
  • #28
Anttech said:
1 word: REDUNDANCY


BGP brings that to the table. YOU are talking about the backbone and the internet colasping when telco's pull out, this isn't true. Yes there will be disruption but the Internet will reconverge. Of course customers of that dead telco won't have any internet, that's a no brainer, but the internet colasping? Thats scaremongering and total nonsence
No, if you read my clarification "The bottlenecks caused by losing a major portion of the internet backbone would slow the internet to a crawl in the affected country or countries." You probably don't even know of the time that UUNET was upgrading their backbone routers and there was an error which caused internet traffic to come to a crawl, it affected all major carriers in the US.

If Verizon or AT&T shut down there would be a collapse here since they carry so much of the US's internet traffic. Millions of users would be cut off from the internet. That is why anyone with critical applications or websites are multi-homed (connected to more than one provider).

But like I said they make too much money to quit.
 
  • #29
You probably don't even know of the time that UUNET was upgrading their backbone routers and there was an error which caused internet traffic to come to a crawl, it affected all major carriers in the US.
Dont presume to know me, or what I know :smile:

If Verizon or AT&T shut down there would be a collapse here since they carry so much of the US's internet traffic. Millions of users would be cut off from the internet. That is why anyone with critical applications or websites are multi-homed (connected to more than one provider).
without looking at the domestic traffic in the US I wouldn't be able to agree or disagree with that assertion! However as an transit AS i would doubt that, due to what I already stated.

Anyway, the market and probably legislation at government level wouldn't allow it to happen
 
  • #30
Evo said:
First, it's only AT&T Worldnet e-mail servers. AT&T doesn't have the ability to do this across the internet.

What does AT&T's user agreement say on this matter? If they are going to reserve the right to read and emails coming through their servers and share them with law enforcement agencies (they probably do anyway, to catch spammers and other abusers of their services), they would need to say this in their user agreement when you sign up for the service. It probably does say it, and probably most people never bother to read the fine print. If it applies more broadly, and isn't part of the user agreement with the provider, then that's something that would concern me as a Constitutional issue. If it is something only applying to AT&T customers, but not specified in their user agreement, then it would be a contractual issue between them and their customers.

For example, I know that when I connect with the internet through work, or use my work email account, they do reserve the right to monitor what I'm doing and suspend my internet access if I violate their conditions for use or abuse their services. I have no expectation of privacy of any communications made through my work internet connection.
 
  • #31
Moonbear said:
What does AT&T's user agreement say on this matter? If they are going to reserve the right to read and emails coming through their servers and share them with law enforcement agencies (they probably do anyway, to catch spammers and other abusers of their services), they would need to say this in their user agreement when you sign up for the service. It probably does say it, and probably most people never bother to read the fine print. If it applies more broadly, and isn't part of the user agreement with the provider, then that's something that would concern me as a Constitutional issue. If it is something only applying to AT&T customers, but not specified in their user agreement, then it would be a contractual issue between them and their customers.
From the member agreement

"b. Monitoring and Removal of Content. AT&T does not pre-screen Content, but AT&T and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) to monitor any and all traffic routed though the Service, and in their sole discretion to refuse, block, move or remove any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, we shall have the right to remove any Content that violates this Agreement or is otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by us or submitted to us.

c. Investigation of Unlawful Conduct. AT&T cooperates fully with federal and state enforcement officials investigating unlawful behavior on AT&T Worldnet Service's system, and members are required to do the same. You acknowledge and agree that AT&T Worldnet Service may preserve Content and may disclose Content if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: 1) comply with legal process; 2) enforce this Agreement; 3) respond to claims that any Content violates the rights of third-parties; or 4) protect the rights, property or personal safety of AT&T, its users and the public."
 
  • #32
I'm not a lawyer, but even clause c) IMO cannot be reasonably interpreted to give wholesale right for gov't tracking. I suppose under c-4, one could construe such permission was given in the first place, but a real stretch.
 
  • #33
First of all, one can have all of the illegal clauses desired, but that doesn't make them legal or binding, so the statement alone is not proof of legality. Beyond that, the basic argument is that this is not a lawful investigation into unlawful activitives. Rather, it is a random, illegal search. I fault AT&T, potentially, for complicity in an illegal abuse of power, but the real offenders are [potentially] the NSA and whoever approved the operation.

The fact that AT&T employees have access to emails does not imply that all emails are randomly searched for hints of illegal activity. In fact, the expectation would be that a very very small percentage, perhaps a fraction of a percent, would ever be subject to scrutiny. In no way does data mining conform to this expectation.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Ivan Seeking said:
In fact, the expectation would be that a very very small percentage, perhaps a fraction of a percent, would ever be subject to scrutiny. In no way does data mining conform to this expectation.
Maybe there's just a semantic conflict here... but data mining doesn't scrutinize: the point of data mining is to find the things that ought to be scrutinized.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
First of all, one can have all of the illegal clauses desired, but that doesn't make them legal or binding, so the statement alone is not proof of legality. Beyond that, the basic argument is that this is not a lawful investigation into unlawful activitives. Rather, it is a random, illegal search. I fault AT&T, potentially, for complicity in an illegal abuse of power, but the real offenders are [potentially] the NSA and whoever approved the operation.

The fact that AT&T employees have access to emails does not imply that all emails are randomly searched for hints of illegal activity. In fact, the expectation would be that a very very small percentage, perhaps a fraction of a percent, would ever be subject to scrutiny. In no way does data mining conform to this expectation.

Ivan,

Sure whether these things carry weight is always arguable. What gets my bowels in an uproar is that I regularly communicate with friends and fellow amateur rocketry buffs about propellant compositions, potential methods of guidance, etc and that has got to have me on at least a few lists via keyword inclusions. Add to it that I'm an outspoken critic of the current administration, subscribe to Democracy Now, etc, and have been filmed at various anti-war protests.

At this point, I doubt anyone is really paying that much attention, but my parents were on a couple of lists for no greater sin than being Common Cause members during the Nixon admin. But say, if I decided to look at matters first hand, and visit the middle east, and fell in love while there with a Syrian physicist, I have no illusions that my life would get turned upside down in a hurry. Maybe just a polite shakedown, but who knows anymore? A free jetliner ride to god knows where? Thats the slippery slope.
 
<h2>1. What are the allegations against AT&T for spying?</h2><p>The allegations against AT&T involve the company's collaboration with the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct mass surveillance on American citizens. It is believed that AT&T allowed the NSA to access its internet traffic and phone records without proper legal authorization.</p><h2>2. How did these allegations come to light?</h2><p>The allegations were first revealed by a former AT&T technician, Mark Klein, in 2006. He claimed that the company had built a secret room in one of its facilities in San Francisco, where the NSA could monitor internet and phone communications.</p><h2>3. Has AT&T denied these allegations?</h2><p>AT&T has denied any wrongdoing and claims that it only complies with legal requests for information from government agencies. However, documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013 provided further evidence of AT&T's collaboration with the NSA.</p><h2>4. What is the impact of these allegations on the public?</h2><p>These allegations have raised concerns about the violation of privacy rights and civil liberties of American citizens. It has also sparked debates about the balance between national security and individual privacy.</p><h2>5. Is there any ongoing investigation into these allegations?</h2><p>Yes, there have been ongoing investigations and lawsuits against AT&T for its involvement in the NSA's surveillance program. In 2015, a federal appeals court ruled that the NSA's bulk collection of phone records was illegal, and in 2016, a lawsuit was filed against AT&T for its role in the program.</p>

1. What are the allegations against AT&T for spying?

The allegations against AT&T involve the company's collaboration with the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct mass surveillance on American citizens. It is believed that AT&T allowed the NSA to access its internet traffic and phone records without proper legal authorization.

2. How did these allegations come to light?

The allegations were first revealed by a former AT&T technician, Mark Klein, in 2006. He claimed that the company had built a secret room in one of its facilities in San Francisco, where the NSA could monitor internet and phone communications.

3. Has AT&T denied these allegations?

AT&T has denied any wrongdoing and claims that it only complies with legal requests for information from government agencies. However, documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013 provided further evidence of AT&T's collaboration with the NSA.

4. What is the impact of these allegations on the public?

These allegations have raised concerns about the violation of privacy rights and civil liberties of American citizens. It has also sparked debates about the balance between national security and individual privacy.

5. Is there any ongoing investigation into these allegations?

Yes, there have been ongoing investigations and lawsuits against AT&T for its involvement in the NSA's surveillance program. In 2015, a federal appeals court ruled that the NSA's bulk collection of phone records was illegal, and in 2016, a lawsuit was filed against AT&T for its role in the program.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
264
Views
25K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
40
Views
12K
Back
Top