Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NSA Lying to you about the nature of their searcches.
Vanity | 6/17/2013 | Vendome

Posted on 06/17/2013 8:10:23 PM PDT by Vendome

So I'm watching the news today and start seeing our illustrious Bureaucrats Out Right Lying about what they collect and what they don't.
They tell us today they don't collect locations of cell phone trawled for in pursuit of a target named in a warrant.
I want you to understand when they issue a warrant, many times, with "Reasonable Cause" They are violating the Constitution by:
1.  Using "Reasonable Cause" as the basis for a warrant.  The Constitution requires no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.
2.  supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As to point 2. above wrap your head around "Whole Pipe" Access.  Here they have granted themselves direct access to the Whole Pipe of transmission of information, be that voice or data and includes every last relevant part of a transmission, including location of cell phone at any time during transmission of wink/wink, keep alive, GPS, txt, email, incoming and outgoing calls.
Whole pipe access trawls every device transitting during the time the NSA, DOJ, DEA and FBI is gathering information on a target.  There is a technical reason for why they do this but, I still believe it is against the law for them to gather information, especially as a matter of habit, course and intent, of innoccent people, organizations, enterprises and groups, who have not been named in the warrant haven't even a tangential relationship to the target named in the warrant.
Service providers are required by to provide all information transmitted by a cell phone, VoIP, PSTN, FAX, VPN, etc inclding CLLI and any and all information that would identify where a transmission geographically begins and ends, as well where the device is when idle.
Now, I purposely misspelled   searcches in the title of the thread.  Why?  Because frequently the information they are targeting is just that much incorrect.  Think about that and what I wrote as you delve into my article explaning the history, laws passed, and technical means.
You'll agree with me, that the NSA and the other alphabet agencies are flat out lying when they claim they don't don't do this or that.  They do because of the technical means they use to achieve their aims and also because they have less reason to not keep all that is caught in the trawling of a Whole Pipe, during their unConstitutional search and they, having no client to defend will, have, do and will continue to archive any all information they obtain unlawfully.

TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 1st; 4th; infringing; liying; vanity
Guess I get to give one of my history lessons on telecom and how we got here.
It's long so grab a drink.
"Snowjob" didn't really do anything other than give NSA's program a name "PRISM".  There are many such programs throughout the government.
There are various telecom laws that have been enacted since the 1934 Communications Act that enabled the government to do just what they have been revealed to be doing.
Which created the FCC, who could over see and regulate telecom and broadcasting.
This had the effect of creating monopolies by government fiat, as the FCC was to make broadcast and telecom regular throughout the states.
It also granted the government, for the 1st time, a lawful means of wiretapping:
"no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communications to any person."
The transimission of ten digits constitutes communication in that you authorize a carrier to originate a call from a phone number, which you own and they manage, to a number which someone else owns and is managed by the terminating carrier.
The terminating end receives your call and sees your ANI (automatic number identification) dispalyed.  This gives the party called information about who may be calling and You Transmitted That Message, from a number and device you own.  That is the 1st time you communicate with a person before a word is uttered.
 Keep this in mind later as you read so you understand the fullness of how government bureacrates justify views your 4th amendment and 1st.
Wire tapping wasn't against the law per se but, rather, the information gathered could not be divulged from a wiretap.  So government went on doing it anyway, much the way the are doing it today.  I believe the possession of a private transmission by anyone, in particular, a government without a lawful and sworn warrant is an abrigement of the 1st and 4th amendment.
The public became increasing aware of this and demanded more regulation over wiretapping and eavesdropping of their conversation.  They weren't specific enough about what they would not allow and government wanted to continue wiretapping and eavesdropping and they looked for ways to pass one thing that really was another.  So in 1968 OCCSSA was passed and you ended up with a further piercing of your 1st and 4th amendment rights, as pertains to transimission via wire or broadcasting:

To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications where none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.

So problem solved right?  Need to have proper jurisdiction and control by warrant to wiretap by Law Enforcement?
Maybe.  But at least with 1968 the wiretapping came under control and was now limited to a specific individual, for a specific time period(30 days) and for a specific number.  It basically got specific and limited how LEO's could obtain information.
Now here is the fun part of 1968:

Nothing contained in this chapter or Section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities.  Nor shall anything contained in this chapter be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. 

Sweet!  The Federal Government and the President alone can abrogate your rights but, local LEO!  Heavens to Betsy!  Our rights have been restored...NOT!
Let's skip a few other acts and go to 1978.
Here we get FISA aka The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  This granted the Feds a new and farther reaching power than 1934 and 1968.  Now they can get faster respone on warrants to sweep communications made to or received by US citizens or organizations who happen to be in this country and suspected of crimes or organizing crimes against the state and they can go to a special court that deals specifically with FISA and FISA alone.
Kind of like fastracking and the probable cause requirement was weakened to further expedite a warrant.
Fast forward again to the the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act or (ECPA).  Right around this time, because of competition in telecom, all kinds of communications mediums are expanding to the consumer and businesses alike.  That is, they are becoming more affordable and common in the marketplace and these new services or technologies make communication faster and easier.
The government needs to get a handle on this and quick before they lose the lawful ability to monitor things like Cellular Phones(in your car), Faxing(no more suitcase), Paging(some quick messaging with limited characters displayed), email is now coming into use and othe services that were made unlawfully using things like DISA off a PBX or hybrid phone system.  Direct Inward Service Access allows you to call back into a switch or PBX and transfer to anywhere in the corportation and reach an intended party faster or simply get to voice mail which was now finally starting to work, thanks largely to the smart guys at a PBX company called ROLM, who were the 1st to make it work correctly.
It also allowed another nifty feature that criminals, terrorists and other miscreants were taking advantage of and that was while DISA allowed you to call anyone or device within a companies network, it also allowed you to transfer out of the PBX and make calls to anywhere.  Heck, if you didn't know DISA was enable on your PBX you would figure it when the phone bill came in for $thousands of dollars to countries like Pakistan, Afgahnistan, India, Mumbai, Mexico and countries all over South America.  It was pretty rampant for a while.
So ECPA now allowed the Federal government,which I believe at this time consists of largely the FBI and Secret Service to do really neat things like trap and trace or use pen registers to obtain numbers dialed and numbers dialed from.
The Secret Service had a trap and trace on our switch, at the long distance company I was working for at the time.  My recollection is that is wasn't in use all the time but, only for lawful and specific investigations.
This was made possible by:

Upon an application made under section 3122 of this title, the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the court if the court finds that the attorney for the Government or the State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

So it kinduh sort came with some new limitations or did it?
Well, actually the law established a mechanism by which the government could now do what it called "Roving Wiretaps".  This enabled the government to tap "A Person" and the communications devices they use, anywhere, anytime.  How did criminals get around this?
Well, calling cards, call back services and Cell phones.   Calling cards could be used from say a payphone that one doesn't frequent.  You would dial a toll free number, then a PIN authorizing you to make a call and then you would make a call.  Afterward you would toss the card and go get some more.  NOT TRACEABLE at all at that time.  We can trace better today but, switching and routing technologies as well as advanced huereistics give us a better capability.
Call back services enabled you to essentiall do the same thing.  You call a toll free number and they complete your call.  Here however you use a credit card and you could get those anywhere, anytime back then.
Cell phones.  So at that time Cell Phones are either firmly in your car or carried as a bag phone.  Kewel thing here is two things.  They don't transmit the calling ANI to the PSTN as they are switched within the cell service providers network.  All the PSTN sees is the switch number and a Feature Group A or B origination code and they bill the service provider and the service provider bills you off the connection between them and the distant end.  The other kewel thing is how cell phones work.  As you move your phone would jump from tower to tower to tower.  No way to trace back then.
Sucks for feds but, there are some work arounds which is why they come up with CALEA in 1994.  Now you are screwed because all service providers must provide and pass not only ANI of transimission and receive to each other but, also how the call was routed. The whole routing. This gives the Feds more power to not only scrutinze your calling patterns and who you've called but, additional powers to Rove Tap but, still that wasn't enough for an ever voracious Fed looking for new tools that ensare criminals.
More directly communications were required by law to develop methods so as to make surveillance easier and not impeded that process.  It doesn't say it ecactly like that but, that is how it is interpreted and here's why:

A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services…are capable of expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment [and] to access call-identifying information.

Now, you would think the phone companies would be pissed about the government telling them how to make their equipement, at their cost, which provided no value to the end user or their customers.  Just another cost and and appendix to a system that no one asked for but, was imposed by law.
They were P.O.'d as hell.
So Congress mercifully handed over $500 million dollars of your tax money to pay for this.  Well, at least initially the cost ended up being way more than that, as most government programs aren't properly calculated using so much as an abacus.  Just a plan on the back of a napkin.
Actually, billions of your tax dollars were spent to modify communications companies equipment and networks to give the Feds even greater, more intrusive and faster access to almost anything they wanted.
Cute huh?
Not as cute the govenment finally thinking "Hey, we forked over all this money for this equipment.  We actually own it or parts of it and now we demand access to our stuff".  Like what your money bought?  The communications companies and the Feds were now partners by law.  Anyone think that is funny?
Now, the FBI's Electronic Surveillance has been meeting with the FCC since 2003.  Why? Well, seems there is a technology that is now being used worldwide to make and receive phone calls and there doesn't seem to be a of tracking these calls because they are not routed using circuit switching they are now being routed via packet switching and it's hard to distinguish data being sent from voice.  Erh, well because it's packet switching they can't distinguish essentially what's in the envelope without some sort of inspection.
But, wait a minute!  Our partners under the 1994 CALEA act requires communications companies to help us and provide a means and method to surveil so as not impede our investigations!  Let's have a talk with them.  Only this time we bring some of our other partners like DEA and DOJ into the conversation and let's serious on this.
The list of agencies who can surveil you just got bigger.
 But how did they start surveiling?  They and their partners invented a program called Carnivore or technically DCS 1000 system.  Most of us just called it DEX for short.
But, giving access to specific users(targets) ends up being pretty difficult both from a logistics standpoint and there were critics such as EFF and EPIC who worried about privacy on a whole host of issues.  The government prevailed and mandated that if the user could not be silo'd for an investigation then the service provider must give "Whole Pipe" access.  Guess who is in that pipe?  How would I know and you don't until you surveil each and every thing transmitting through the pipe and analyzing egress and ingress traffic.  Now, how do get to who you want?  You actually access everyone's information in that pipe.
That's where your privacy starts to erode.  Say you say something interesting over the phone, send a txt or email and the FBI finds it curious.  Well, what if they had a buddy who could use a bit of a hand out and they simply made them aware of what you transmitted either indirectly or outright let them see or hear it?
Now, you are being surveiled.  Wink, wink...Oh wait old techonology.  But so is everyone else by this other three letter agency because there isn't another way to do it.
It's called trawling for a reason.
For proof that government and communications companies were partners we need look at some statements and just ponder the people who made them:
"I think the FCC has a lot of room here," said Stewart Baker, who represented ISP's. "CALEA was written knowing that there would be new technologies for telecommunications." Now who was this Mr. Baker on a deeper level?  Well, only the former general counsel of the NSA.
Derek Khlopin, regulatory counsel to the Telecommunications Industry Association said what the FBI is "worried about is, when you have voice over DSL, if there's a way someone could say they're not subject to CALEA."   Guess where he worked before getting this plush job?  He was an Attorney at the FCC!
The ACLU, EFF, EPIC and many VoIP providers as well as DSL providers objected and said their services didn't fall within the definition of CALEA. 
Oh really?
The FBI fired back "CALEA applies to telecommunications carriers providing DSL and other types of wireline broadband access."  Basically, FU and give us what we want...Now!  You Will Give us Full Pipe Access.  Problem solve for the alphabet agencies at Fed.
Your 1st and 4th got eroded right there and then.
I believe it's around this time that Vonage lifts the curtain and describes that they can route to any agency by Court Order any stream they want so long as they have the right equipment on their end.  Forward to today and companies are saying the Feds don't have direct access to their networks, right?  Well, in one sense they don't but, if they direct a service provider to give them whole pipe and they have the right equipment on their end, then everyone gets caught up in the trawling.  Maybe the intended target, maybe you, Maybe your loved ones but, everyone on that pipe gets redirected to the alphabet agency requesting it.
Remember Stuart Baker, the attorney representing ISP's and formerly of the FCC?  He further lifts the curtain and has this to say.  Remember, he is the legal interface to the FCC on behalf of ISP's but, formerly of the FCC:
"It would be very difficult to set up a network so that you could only intercept voice packets and not the others. The likely result here is that you'll have modifications that are useful for law enforcement not just for voice packets but for other packets as well."
And he's absolutely right.  There is no way to seperate the packets.  For that you would need something called DSCP and that doesn't come into wide spread use and useable, from a surveillance standpoint and the network that enables that isn't ubiquitos ...yet.
Still in 2003 the government has made clear they see communications providers of all types "Their Partners" and now the providers are admitting they are. We already have Vonage admitting they are a partner and giving whole pipe access.  Who else demystifies the relationship between private entities and the government?  Why none other than Earthlink and David Baker, who is the vice president of law and public policy "The FBI is really an ally of sorts" ... "They're saying to the FCC, look, you guys are thinking of classifying everything as an information service, but you have to be aware of the implications." Naw, David you guys took Fed money and like the mafia once you take, your theirs.  Oh, don't want to forget, David use to be Commissioner and Chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission.  I think he's a good guy. He actually works on issues of privacy and is currently Chairman of the California ISP Providers Association (CISPA)  I've met him once and seen some of his writings.
Oh!  Let's move back to 2000 and the Digital Privacy Act Sponsored by!  Bob Barr, Republican plick.  This dastardly act removed the requirement of a warrant and the alphabet agencies now, only needed probable cause.  Hey! WTF!  Did you not read the 4th amendment regarding search and seizure and that warrant sworn upon part???
But, there it is.  So now they had access to ""Full Pipe" trawling everyone's information and they no longer required a warrant.  How Kafka.
But, that's not all and they weren't even close to finishing off your unalienable rights.  Why later that same year, they passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  Don't you love how they title all thee things and envelope them in terms that really obfuscate the evil part so you don't look deeper?
What did the ECPA enable the Feds to do now?  Why, it expanded their search and seizure of private records by demanding service providers deliver, on demand, any and all electronic communications "stored at the service provider".  
As the service providers have mentioned they can do this, for their partners, if they have the right equipment at their end.  They do. It's the law, otherwise it would "impede an investigation".
Remember way back at the beginning of all this where I explained who owns your phone number, your email address(not the free ones), your website(paid ones), etc?  Why you own and the service provider is only a manager of your private and paid for stuff.  Whenever you initiate a call, txt, email on your private and paid for devices on a service you pay for, you own that and when you make that call you are transmitting who the sender is.  Same on email, txt, VoiP etc.
That is your private information and transmission.  1st and 4th amendment applies but, the partners all got together and said "Nope" we share it amongst each other and with any Tom, Dick or Hairy agency that demands Full Pipe access and your stuff might get caught up that trawling.
This is the FBI's Carnivore eating up everything it can and hell, they even rent it out to other alphabet agencies and who do we know they don't let InterPol or other partners of the US use it?  Well, another program makes that possible.  More later.
Between 1996 and 2006 the FBI admits in an open paper their Internet wiretaps increased more than 2,000%.  Big deal?  I don't know.  All that is still quite young and still is in terms of market growth and saturation.  Maybe it's a valid number and we should accept it.  After all there weren't that many people with email even before 2000.
Still, all your stuff got tossed on a table and perused while they were looking for another guy's stuff.  Remember, the 4th amendment and it's dictate that a warrant must specify place and objects very spefically?  Bob Barr toasted that for you and this just before we get to Patriot Act which will come a year later, after some animals kill 3,000 human beings in one day.
Moving on.
One more time "No government agency has direct access to our systems"
Going back one more time because I am trying to remember all this off the top of my head and looking for proof and quotes on the Internet.  Let's look at December 2000 and the FBI issues a report as to how Carnivore is used and how it operates.
Have fun reading this:

Currently, all Internet wiretaps using the Carnivore system begin with an FBI investigation.  As with any wiretap, the FBI requires its investigators to ask for permission.  According to the Illinois report, the process the FBI follows to obtain a wiretap is as follows:


--For a full mode wiretap only

·         A case agent in an investigation determines a wiretap may be needed.

·         The agent contacts the FBI’s Chief Division Counsel (CDC), familiar with statutory requirements.

·         The agent contacts a Technically Trained Agent (TTA); an experienced Special Agent with advanced training.

·         After consulting with the CDC, the TTA, and with field office supervisors, the case agent will determine if the wiretap is required.


--For a pen register wiretap only

·         The case agent requests pen-register surveillance in writing, with a justification for necessity.


--Then, for either full mode or pen mode

·         FBI shows a judge the relevance of the information sought to the investigation.

·         FBI shows a judge why traditional enforcement methods are insufficient.

·         FBI must submit request with information such as target internet service provider (ISP), e-mail address, etc.

·         This process may take up to 4-6 months.


            At this point, two court orders are issued; one that authorizes the intercept, and a second, which directs the ISP to cooperate with the investigation.  After receiving a court order, the FBI begins conversations with the target ISP.  Carnivore is deployed when:

·         The ISP cannot narrow sufficiently the information retrieved to comply with the court order.

·         The ISP cannot receive sufficient information.

·         The FBI does not want to disclose information to the ISP, as in a sensitive national security investigation.


Let's get on a big boat with a huge net and go fishing!         


   If it is deemed necessary, a Carnivore computer is taken from FBI headquarters and brought to the ISP.  The TTA takes responsibility for the installation of the system, for configuration of the system based on the court order, and for securing the work area at the ISP.  After this, the TTAs work is done; the TTA does not receive or complete minimization on any of the information collected by Carnivore. 


At this point, the case agent can retrieve the intercepted information remotely as it is received by Carnivore, or he can await the information on the Jaz disk from the computer. 


Hardware Architecture

            The hardware components of the Carnivore system are:

1)      a one-way tap into an Ethernet data stream;

2)      a general purpose computer to filter and collect data;

3)      one or more additional general purpose computers to control the collection and examine the data;

4)      a telephone link to connect the additional computer(s) to the collection computer.

Figure 2: Carnivore Hardware Architecture


            One Way Tap

            The connection from the filtering/collection computer to the ISP's network is a third-party one-way tap.  The device, called the Century Tap, is produced by Shomiti Systems.  The one-way tap is placed between a link from a switch to a subnet, as illustrated in the figure above.

            The configuration reported in the Illinois report only works for standard Ethernet.  Although the tap is capable of being used with full-duplex Ethernet, the researchers at the IITRI have determined that the presence of collisions could cause packet loss, or even the capture of wrong packets.  In full duplex mode, this problem is exacerbated by increased throughput.

            Filtering/Collection Computer

            The computer which resides at the ISP is a Pentium-class PC installed with a 2 GB Jaz Drive, a standard 10/100 Mbps Ethernet adapter, a modem, Windows NT, and the software package pcAnywhere, produced by Symantec.  It connects to the one-way tap through its Ethernet adapter.  It connects to an outside control/examination computer through a modem using a special telephone link.  According to the Illinois report, the computer is installed without a monitor or keyboard.

            Control/Examination Computer

            Any computer may act as a control/examination computer, so long as it has installed on it: pcAnywhere, the DragonWare package including CoolMiner and Packeteer, a modem, and the proper keys and passwords to access the Windows NT administrator account, pcAnywhere, and the telephone link.

            Telephone link

            The filtering/collection computer communicates with the control/examination computer through a telephone line, which is installed especially for its use.  The telephone line is protected by third-party devices from Computer Peripheral Systems, Inc; (CPSI) from their line of Challenger Security Products (CSP).  The protection devices come in pairs; a Lock is a device attached to the phone line on the end of the filtering/collection computer, and a Key is another device attached to the phone line on the end of the many control/examination computer being used. 


Software Architecture


Figure 3: Carnivore Advanced Menu

            "Carnivore software is a component of a software suite called DragonWare written by the FBI. The other components of DragonWare are Packeteer and CoolMiner, two additional programs that reconstruct e-mail and other Internet traffic from the collected packets." The software will be examined in two ways, first its functionality, and second its architecture.


            Carnivore's functionality can be broken up into 3 areas: Filtering, Output, and Analysis. 


                        The filtering system provided with the software is intended to take the large amounts of data passing through the tapped network stream and prevent the unwanted data from being stored.  The software provides the user many different options for filtering and the combination of filters:


Fixed IP

Can choose a range of IP addresses.

Dynamic IP

If not in fixed IP mode, one can choose to include packets from in either Radius or DHCP mode.

Protocol Filtering

One can choose to include packets from TCP, UDP, and/or ICMP in either Full mode, Pen mode, or none.

Text Filtering

One can include packets that contain arbitrary text.

Port Filtering

One can select particular ports to include (i.e. 25 (SMTP), 80 (HTTP), 110 (POP3)).

E-mail address Filtering

One can select to include packets that contain a particular e-mail address in the to or from fields of an e-mail.



                        The software produces three types of files when storing packets, files with extensions '.vor', '.output', and '.error'.  The actual data collected from the network is saved in a .vor file.  The '.output' file contains a human readable version of the settings used to collect the data in the corresponding '.vor' file.  Finally, the '.error' file keeps track of any system messages that may have been generated during collection.  The software does not prevent files from being stored on the local hard drive, but they are typically stored on the 2GB Jaz Drive attached to the system.


                        The DragonWare package provides two programs to analyze the information stored in the '.vor' file produced by Carnivore.


                                    This program takes the collection of IP packets in .vor files, reconstructs the TCP session, and creates a series of files that can be viewed with CoolMiner. 


                                    This program can be set up to show only certain types of packets.


            The Carnivore software consists of four components: TapNDIS driver, TapAPI.dll, Carnivore.dll, and Carnivore.exe

                        TapNDIS (written in C) is a kernel-mode driver, which captures Ethernet packets as they are received, and applies some filtering.  The source is divided into 13 files, 9 of which are borrowed intact or with only minor changes, from WinDis 32 sample programs.  2 others were generated by Microsoft Developer Studio.  The remaining two files contain all the logic for driver-level filters and for writing data to a file.  The IITRI assumes this to be the core of the Carnivore implementation.

                        TapAPI.dll (written in C++) provides the API for accessing the TapNDIS driver functionality from other applications. 

                        Carnivore.dll (written in C++) provides functionality for controlling the intercept of raw data.  This is where pen mode truncation occurs.


Did you understand any of that?  I do but, this is my job. 


All you really need to know is this part: "At this point, the case agent can retrieve the intercepted information remotely as it is received by Carnivore"

This is published 13 years ago!  And the service providers are trying to tell you the Alphabet agencie do not have direct access to their networks!  Are you freaking kidding me!?  It sure looks like they do upon court order!
And her is the rub in case you didn't want to read all that stuff up above:

The FBI perform's its own minimization. That is, "control of the information is removed from a third-party source".  The FBI and other agencies such as DOJ and DEA have no clients to protect.  That means they have no legal or lawful reason to actually perform minimization, the 1st and 4th amendments be damned!  Remember Reagan's sarcastic joke "I'm from the government.  I'm here to help"???  You just have to trust they are of the highest morals and operate with pure and nuetral ethics.

Has there been any news of late that would give you a reason to trust them?

Well, you shouldn't as the FBI IITRI review of Carnivore states “the statutory suppression remedy available for illegal interception of other communications in Title III is not extended to electronic communications… the data gathered would not automatically be thrown out as evidence.”


Wow?! you mean you could just keep the information and use it later whenever it suited you?  Courts said "Yeah, they can do that".


Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU sent the following in a letter to the House Judiciary Subcomittee on the Constitution:
"The existence of Carnivore first came to light in the April 6 testimony of
Attorney Robert Corn-Revere to the Constitution Subcommittee. Its operation
was further detailed in a report that appeared in today's Wall Street
Journal (copy attached).  According to these reports, the Carnivore system
-- essentially a computer running specialized software-- is attached
directly to an Internet Service Provider's (ISP) network. Carnivore is
attached either when law enforcement has a Title III order from a court
permitting it to intercept in real time the contents of the electronic
communications of a specific individual, or a trap and trace or pen
register order allowing to it obtain the "numbers" related to
communications from or to a specified target.

But unlike the operation of a traditional a pen register, trap and trace
device, or wiretap of a conventional phone line, Carnivore gives the FBI
access to all traffic over the ISP's network, not just the communications
to or from a particular target. Carnivore, which is capable of analyzing
millions of messages per second,
purportedly retains only the messages of
the specified target, although this process takes place without scrutiny of
either the ISP or a court.

Carnivore permits access to the email of every customer of an ISP and the
email of every person who communicates with them. Carnivore is roughly
equivalent to a wiretap capable of accessing the contents of the
conversations of all of the phone company's customers, with the "assurance"
that the FBI will record only conversations of the specified target.  This
"trust us, we are the Government" approach is the antithesis of the
procedures required under our the wiretapping laws.
They authorize limited
electronic surveillance of the communications of specified persons, usually
conducted by means of specified communications devices.  They place on the
provider of the communications medium the responsibility to separate the
communications of persons authorized to be intercepted from other
Want to know what else is BS about Carnivore and other operations like it?  The operators of Carnivore are anonymous and cannot be brought into court to test their expertise, accuracy, accreditation, etc.  Constitutionally you are able to confront your accuser and anyone in the process to test them as well right?  Well, in the case of Carnivore and other programs their is no chain of evidence at the operator level.  They login simply as "Administrator".  Heck, that could be anyone. 
You are so screwed.
Nowadays, they install Carnivore and like systems at will and with a court order they login remotely from say Miami Beach and begin their surveillance.  Why should the be there?  The Service provider is ordered by law to be a partner and provide all means to increase the speed of an investigation and there is no real reason why an FBI's partner can't host the Carnivore machine and the FBI access it remotely and they do.
I was going to go further and provide information on Patriot Act, what it enabled and PA II what it further enable, and how FISA completely eroded 4th amendment protections but, don't be "Snowed" by this BS that are collecting "metadata".  But, I'm tired.
They are in fact, trawling for information.
They are in fact, using your private number to intercept others private numbers, txts, VoIP, email, etc.  If you are paying for these services you have a complete expectation to privacy.  You own the device, numbers, addresses and pay for a service.  The government can no more say they are a partner with service providers anymore than they can go to the leasing company of your automobile and demand they give access to your vehicle that you pay for and maintain.
They could no more claim they are partners with the equipment you lease for your business such as phone system, computers, routers, Multifunction printers, etc and then go the leasing company and demand access to all those information devices as well any information you transmit from them using a service you pay for.
Same with your home.  They can't claime partnership with the bank and then enter your home.
How is they can do this with your private and paid communications???
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
So "Snowjob" put a name to another program called PRISM. What's new?
Ever hear of Eyewatcher?  Echelon? Magic Lantern? V-Chip?
Did you know that the Feds can listen to priveledged conversations between a lawyer and a person under arrest if they deem it in the interest of national security?

1 posted on 06/17/2013 8:10:23 PM PDT by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vendome


2 posted on 06/17/2013 8:17:02 PM PDT by bigheadfred (barry your mouth is writing checks your ass cant cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred


3 posted on 06/17/2013 8:24:56 PM PDT by informavoracious (We're being "punished" with Stanley Ann's baby. Obamacare: shovel-ready healthcare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

A long but very interesting read, particularly for an old fart like me.

4 posted on 06/17/2013 8:36:03 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome; Absolutely Nobama; Alex Murphy; alpo; Army Air Corps; azishot; B4Ranch; bigbob; ...

Thanks for the info V.

We know that the governments of the world are being spied on by new world order’s US - UK intelligence alliance.

However, every business in America is also subject to ALL their private info that transits the internet being subject to spying to an unknown degree.

Software companies, engineering firms, financial firms, law firms, chemical firms, etc., etc., etc.

Your encryption is NOT 100% secure, sorry. The NSA brute has the processor muscle to brute force attack and the social engineering to break in where it wants to. They can hear support phone calls where passwords are spoken in the clear, account numbers are spoken in the clear, business plans, political conversations, etc., etc.

Massive, monster, 100% lack of computer security for every business in America.

Let alone every single person.

Let alone businesses and people all over the world who’s data passes through the sniffers in a fraction of a second.

We need more research on this and more voices.

Yes, employees and contractors of NSA, you’re included.

I don’t think many people would enjoy living in the police state that is planned for America.

If your net worth is less than a few hundred million, your assets and your life itself are chicken feed to new world order.

The billionaires of the world, as long as they stay with nwo, will come out on top.

Nwo controls both political parties in our government.

5 posted on 06/17/2013 8:48:06 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

6 posted on 06/17/2013 8:53:20 PM PDT by JoeProBono (Mille vocibus imago valet;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Think about this and I’m going to make it a simple explanation so anyone can understand why the US government has no legitimate, legal or lawful right to any and all information about us.

When you get a cell phone you pay for it.

Along with the cell phone you agree in contract to service with a wireless carrier.

Wireless carrier are what we call Responsible Organizations or RespOrgs. With your service you get a telephone number WHICH belongs to you. In other words, you own the phone, the telephone number and the RespOrg manages your number and the service you contract them for associated with that that number.

So, you fork out some money up front and then every month you fork over money for service you contracted with through a private firm to manage your communications.

Now, when you make a call, text or email, using your fancy new phone that is your private property, using your private number which again, you own, the first transmission signal you send is the ID of your phone, subscriber ID and telephone number.

You own all those as do all the people you communicate with.

When you call them they first time they know it’s you is when they see your telephone number displayed on their phone.

This is called Automatic number identification (ANI). Each phone connect to each other using a means of wink/wink letting each other know and the users there is a connection established.

Whether anyone answers the phone, two devices connected and a message was sent, at a minimum your telephone number but, it may also include a favorite ringtone and picture ID.

This demonstrates further just how much ownership you have over your phone and the information you receive. Further, being able to customize that information, direct calls to another number or send voicemails to text or have text manipulated so that it is machine read back to you.

These things you can do because someone manufactured a phone with these capabilities for end users and for service providers to provide to their customers, who are contracted to them for private service.

No matter how your call is routed within a carriers network or if it transits another carriers network or if it is routed to edge devices who are contracted to the carrier so that the call routing decisions are made automatically based on priorities and decisions that you a private citizen makes as well the decisions of Wireless service providers, which are also owned privately.

They, like you, purchase equipment through various means of financing, barter, trade and outright capital expenditures.

There is no way the government can say they have the right to that which is privately owned.

7 posted on 06/17/2013 9:04:08 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vendome


8 posted on 06/17/2013 9:10:12 PM PDT by Gator113 ( ~just keep livin~ I drink good wine, listen to good music and dream good dreams.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

According to Dick Cheney on Hannity earlier, the contract Snowden had with NSA overrides the hundreds of millions of telephone and internet service contracts expectation of privacy.

Nice, right ?

9 posted on 06/17/2013 9:16:00 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Cheney is wrong, not even incorrect, wrong.

If I understood “Snowjob” he said he could gather nearly any piece of information on an American Citizen within minutes.

Not possible. Not probable.

As far as I can see all Snowjob did was give a name to what most of us or least long time professionals in the communications arena already know and knew.

For instance, ISP’s are required to archive seven years of records. If one of the Alphabet agencies is provided Whole Pipe access to look through the records for a single suspect and the information described in the warrant, the agencies just scoops huge swaths of information that has nothing to do with the target.

They then, violating court order, do not minimize the information. That is, dump and destroy any and all information that is not specific to the warrant.

They have no reason and at this point, no sanction to compel them.

10 posted on 06/17/2013 9:24:01 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Good job ~ quite comprehensive ~ we'll be arguing about it for centuries though.

One element still sticks out ~ the 4th amendment in the constitution starts with "..... against unreasonable searches and seizures...." and not with the hows and whyfors of warrants. This covers the situation where the magistrate, or even a citizen, is walking down the street and sees something. Several histories note the use of 'unreasonable' in this amendment, and elsewhere in English law, such that there's a clear distinction between just seeing something and eavesdropping which was a more directed sort of observation.

With a pre-existing set of records, perhaps the kind required by law and available for perusal for regulatory purposes, we are not engaged in eavesdropping when we look at them statistically. You can still eavesdrop by subjecting those records to higher scrutiny than for which they were intended.

Seriously, there's simply no clear meat-axe in this so we can say THAT goes over here and THAT OTHER THING goes over there. The whole business hinges on 'reasonable' not whether there is a 'warrant', nor whether there is a 'crime'.

As an history note, FR covered all of the 4th amendment issues in detail just a couple of years ago with the Indiana Supreme Court issue. There a case of domestic dispute got turned into a constitutional case when the judge who wrote the decision for the court seems to have relied too much on his background as a military legal advisor ~ he'd been the head lawyer dealing with the prisoners at GITMO.

The solution was to simply remove him and another judge from the court then rehear the final argument which would have resolved the problem. However, we had some upset that it seemed to them the 4th amendment was violated. Actually, in the end, after the legislature passing a law or two, the solution was achieved when two judges LEFT THE COURT!

We get these undigested churnings and they cause great consternation and wailing and gnashing of teeth, but usually it's just a misunderstanding by somebody ~ not a conspiracy to overthrow the government. We can fix these by firing people!

11 posted on 06/18/2013 12:06:46 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome


12 posted on 06/19/2013 5:29:21 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson