The Criminal N.S.A.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:47 am

US must fix secret Fisa courts, says top judge who granted surveillance orders
James Robertson breaks ranks and says he was shocked to hear of changes to allow broader authorisation of NSA programs

Dan Roberts in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 July 2013 17.15 EDT

The Fisa courts, set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are intended to provide legal oversight. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA
A former federal judge who granted government surveillance requests has broken ranks to criticise the system of secret courts as unfit for purpose in the wake of recent revelations by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

James Robertson, who retired from the District of Columbia circuit in 2010, was one of a select group of judges who presided over the so-called Fisa courts, set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which are intended to provide legal oversight and protect against unnecessary privacy intrusions.

But he says he was shocked to hear of recent changes to allow more sweeping authorisations of programmes such as the gathering of US phone records, and called for a reform of the system to allow counter-arguments to be heard.

Speaking as a witness during the first public hearings into the Snowden revelations, Judge Robertson said that without an adversarial debate the courts should not be expected to create a secret body of law that authorised such broad surveillance programmes.

"A judge has to hear both sides of a case before deciding," he told members of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) recently appointed by President Obama.

"What Fisa does is not adjudication, but approval. This works just fine when it deals with individual applications for warrants, but the 2008 amendment has turned the Fisa court into administrative agency making rules for others to follow."

"It is not the bailiwick of judges to make policy," he added.

The comments, during the morning session of a PCLOB public workshop held in a Washington hotel, are the most serious criticism yet from a recently serving Fisa judge.

Until now, Fisa judges have mainly spoken anonymously to defend the court process.

Robertson says he was generally impressed with how "careful, fastidious and scrupulous" the court process had been, but felt the so-called ex parte system (where only the government is able to make its case to the judge) needed urgent reform.

"This process needs an adversary. If it's not the ACLU or Amnesty, perhaps the PCLOB can be that adversary."

Members of the oversight board, which has previously been criticised by Congress as an ineffective watchdog, shook their heads and rolled their eyes when this suggestion was made.

Later on Tuesday afternoon, the workshop also heard from a number of other experts who called for the decisions of the Fisa courts to be made public.

James Baker, a Department of Justice lawyer who has represented the government in surveillance requests before the Fisa court, said that an unclassified summary of its findings could be produced fairly easily in future cases, although it would be harder do this retrospectively.

He said this was preferable to trying to redact existing orders. "Not everything that the Fisa court does is reflected in a [written] opinion," he said. "If the court writes the summary, it can write what it wants to say."

A panel of technical experts also gave evidence that legal attempts to separate US citizens from foreign surveillance targets online were increasingly flawed, because of the difficulty of identifying geographic locations in an era of cloud computing and virtual private networks.

Steven Bellovin, a computer expert at Columbia University, revealed that the NSA had even patented a system of locating addresses by triangulating round-trip times for data packets to travel between known internet nodes, but said such technology still often failed to separate foreign and domestic internet traffic.

The quartet who gave evidence argued that technological solutions to protecting privacy were necessarily limited and less preferable than introducing better policy checks and balances.

Nevertheless, the day-long PCLOB "workshop" produced little sign that the oversight board was preparing to propose radical new policy in its report to President Obama.

James Dempsey, a PCLOB member, criticised civil liberties campaigners for not doing more to suggest alternative ways for the government to gather intelligence. He also suggested the scale of intelligence that needed to be collected made it difficult to see how authorities could go back to granting individual warrants rather than blanket approvals.

Rachel Brand, another seemingly unsympathetic board member, concluded: "There is nothing that is more harmful to civil liberties than terrorism. This discussion here has been quite sterile because we have not been talking about terrorism."
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby Joao » Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:03 am

(Rather lengthy and scholarly look at what Germany has done with Stasi records. I've only posted the beginning here, and have made unmarked excisions for brevity. The entire thing may be a bit too in-depth and specific for a casual reader, but I think it's worth posting to raise awareness about how secret police surveillance has been dealt with in the past. Link to complete text at the bottom.)

Settling Accounts with a Secret Police: The German Law on the Stasi Records
EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1998
John Miller

WHEN TYRANNIES ARE REPLACED BY DEMOCRACIES NOWADAYS, these democracies inherit a baffling problem in the shape of the tyranny's state papers. Should these papers be kept and used in the public interest—for the prosecution of the old regime's crimes, the rehabilitation of its victims or the purging of its public service? Despite frequent public demand for such settlement of accounts with old regimes, twentieth century responses have been by no means clear-cut.

Democratic governments may prefer to 'draw a line' under disturbing past history and to resist the settling of accounts—which can so easily become the settling of scores. This was a typical reaction when fascist regimes were overthrown: post-war Italy, post-Vichy France, Spain after Franco—even the United Kingdom in respect of the liberated Channel Islands. Federal Germany was notoriously late and feeble in dealing with many former Nazis in public life (although lack of access to the relevant archives played a part here). After a few trials the restored Greek democracy burnt the records of the Junta and Civil War.

Post-communist governments in Europe—Russia and the Czech Republic, for example—have tended towards a different approach: the use of their executive power to purge or punish the personnel of the old regime. Not surprisingly, this has led to charges of executive secrecy, partiality and arbitrariness; 'settling accounts with the past' may come to look (especially to the opposition of the day) like an opportunistic grab for political advantage. In yet a third approach, post-apartheid South Africa has set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, empowered to offer amnesty to people who confess to political crimes within two years, after which those who have not come forward may be prosecuted. It is too early to pass judgement on this project, but prima facie it looks like an attempt to have popular participation correct the defects of both bureaucratic and legal procedures. Many democratic governments of the kind we are considering would be nervous about the effects of such participation on an already damaged social cohesion.

A fourth option is 'corrective justice'—the settling of accounts by the systematic, public and impartial means of law. Despite an apparent attractiveness this is a course that has been followed surprisingly rarely. Many societies, after experiencing tyranny, are in no state to agree on adopting corrective justice, nor on the personnel they trust to carry it out. It is hard for corrective justice to be effective without breaching its own legal principles. The scale of judicial work involved may be daunting, without its social outcomes being at all clear. And it diverts resources from other measures of reconstruction. The focus of this article is thus on a rather unusual case: a recent attempt at corrective justice, and, within that, an attempt to use a dictatorship's records to help society settle accounts with that dictatorship. Its aim is, first, a detailed analysis of the German Law on the Documents of the State Security Service of the Former German Democratic Republic. This leads to some consideration of the legislation's impact on society in the former GDR, and thence to some thoughts on the place of law and legal methods in post-communist transitions in general.

Despite the East German regime's illegitimacy, almost everyone with administrative and managerial skills had been associated with it. The ruling Socialist Unity Party (SED) had included every fifth employee and every sixth adult in its ranks—and the proportion had been far higher among white-collar occupations. Many of the revolutionaries of 1989 were ex-communists, some still in search of a purified 'socialism'. The Eastern Christian Democrats who led the 1990 government had a record of cooperation with, indeed subservience to, the SED. Thus, whilst the public mood had long been bitterly hostile to the regime in general, and to some of its specific policies (like the Berlin Wall, the shootings along it and pervasive political police surveillance), it would be wrong to infer a personal hostility towards communists from this.

Against this background the basic legal-constitutional decisions concerning the former GDR regime, its leadership and supporters were as follows:

  • (i) To initiate prosecution of a limited number of people for ordering or committing state-sponsored crimes. They were to be tried under paragraphs common to the penal codes of the Federal Republic and the GDR; where interpretation or penalties differed, the milder of the two codes was to prevail. In October 1996 the Federal Constitutional Court rejected claims that convictions in such cases amounted to retroactive justice.
  • (ii) To quash a wide range of political court sentences and administrative acts of the GDR, and to rehabilitate and compensate their victims
  • (iii) Beyond the small group prosecuted, to encourage the exclusion from public service of figures from the old regime on three grounds: lack of qualifications or personal unsuitability; offences against internationally recognized human or legal rights, where these offences made employment unreasonable to the employer; and—subject to the same proviso—acting in any form for the GDR Ministry of State Security. […]
  • (iv) Otherwise to ignore SED membership and service in the GDR state bureaucracy; of themselves these were not to be grounds for discrimination.
The Law: purposes, definitions and principles
What emerged on 20 December 1991 was the Law on the Documents of the State Security Service of the Former GDR. The Law's purposes are set out in its first paragraph:

  • (i) To allow the individual access to information stored by the Stasi about himself, so that he can clarify the influence of the Stasi on his personal fate;
  • (ii) To protect the individual from impairment of personal rights arising from use of information stored by the Stasi about himself;
  • (iii) To ensure and promote historical, political and legal analysis of the activities of the Stasi;
  • (iv) To put at the disposal of public and private institutions the information required for the purposes specified in this Law.
Purposes (i) and (ii) lie in the field of personal rights, while (iii) and (iv) are public interest purposes. In general one would expect an element of conflict among such purposes, and legislation of this kind anywhere must adjudicate among conflicting claims, especially between personal rights and public interest. Thus the conflict between the privacy purpose (ii) and the public interest purposes (iii) and (iv) is a familiar one for law in developed societies. Not so familiar perhaps is the role of purpose (i), which I shall call the Law's clarification or Aujkliirung purpose, and which (to judge from its position) has a certain priority. It seeks to vindicate the personal rights of the Stasi's victims, but—it is implied—this cannot be done without disclosing the names of Stasi agents and hence infringing their rights to privacy. Something should be emphasised here. Many acts of Stasi agents were criminal, and purpose (iv) includes the gathering of evidence for their prosecution. But some were not: it was not illegal to pass on the damaging gossip that went into many of the records. Nevertheless, says this Law, there is a public interest in purpose (i), the Aujkliirung purpose, and before that public interest some personal rights of Stasi agents, irrespective of their conduct, must give way. It is the most innovative and controversial aspect of the Law.



Complete text
Joao
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby beeline » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:25 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tirman/nsa-deep-state_b_3569316.html


The Quiet Coup: No, Not Egypt. Here.

John Tirman

Executive Director, MIT Center for International Studies


When is a coup d'etat a coup d'etat? A silly debate about the Egyptian military's complete undoing of the state (presidency, constitution, etc.) is grabbing some attention, mainly because those who applaud the military takeover don't want to describe it accurately. But it nonetheless is an interesting question. And it has resonance not just in the beleaguered Middle East. It has high relevance, sadly, to our own battered republic.

The revelations about spying by the National Security Agency (NSA) on American citizens, foreign governments, and just about everyone in between have been aptly treated as a scandal, although the objects of scorn vary. Edward Snowden, the whistleblower or traitor, depending on your predilections, and Glenn Greenwald, the columnist for The Guardian to whomSnowden revealed most of his information, have shaken the complacent status quo in Washington by revealing the massive, years-long programs to gather data in the name of national security. It's very doubtful that such spying is necessary to protect U.S. security, but that's a topic for another day. So is the media attention to the actions of Snowden and Greenwald (which I believe are brave and necessary).

What is vastly more important is how the spying has been conducted and justified. It comprises nothing less than a coup d'etat.

It's not the kind of coup we are accustomed to, where the CIA prompts thugs to murder a democratically elected president (Chile, 1973), or oust a democratically elected prime minister for challenging oil interests (Iran, 1953) or other U.S. corporate interests (Guatemala, 1954), or gives the green light to a military for security interests (Turkey, 1980; Egypt, 2013?). The generals aren't marching into the presidential palace; the president doesn't have an airplane waiting to fly him to exile in the south of France. No, this coup d'etat has been accomplished by an accretion of power unchecked by any institutions that are empowered by the Constitution. It is not just a coup d'etat (a "blow to the state"), but a blow to the tradition and authority of constitutional government, the sine qua non of the American political experience.

How so? The revelations and subsequent reporting, what press critic Jay Rosen calls the "Snowden Effect," expose a parallel state, one dedicated to massive surveillance and covert operations, with an untouchable judicial structure that approves the spying. Enabled by the USA Patriot Act that President George W. Bush pushed through Congress in the shadow of 9/11, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates by its own rules and procedures, ones not subject to anything resembling constitutionality. The Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment, citizen petitioning -- none of what we have taken for granted as comprising the legal, national state has the power to stop it.

Snowden's and the others' revelations should not be completely surprising, given the work of Dana Priest and William Arkin in their 2011 book, Top Secret America. Many of the most shocking bits were excerpted in the Washington Post, where Priest is a reporter. They uncovered a vast, opaque security bureaucracy, extremely inefficient but aggressively intrusive. "The federal-state-corporate partnership has produced a vast domestic intelligence apparatus that collects, stores, and analyzes information about tens of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing," they wrote. It involved, they calculated, nearly 4,000 organizations in the United States, "each with its own counterterrorism responsibilities and jurisdictions."

So we have had now for at least a dozen years the growth of a parallel state that operates by its own rules, in secret, and in ways that would be considered unconstitutional. (I know we needn't remind our readers of what the Fourth Amendment guarantees, but just to refresh your memories: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.") Again, what's important here is not the mere incidence of the government violating the Constitution, but the creation, nurturing, shielding, and rapid growth of structures that institutionalize an alternative authority, set of rules, and permissible action.

When, years ago, I was researching a book on Turkey, then under the sway of its military, observers would often speak darkly of "the deep state" -- those hidden, powerful, extralegal agencies and cadres that would act on their own authority. Other countries would have them too, usually enabled by police ministries or intelligence agencies. Dissidents, out-of-line newspaper editors, priests and nuns speaking truth to power, union organizers -- these types would come under the scrutiny and often the harsh reprisals of the deep state.

Now we know: the United States of America is partially governed by a deep state, undemocratic, secret, aligned with intelligence agencies, spying on friend and foe, lawless in almost every respect.

If this doesn't constitute a coup d'etat, it's hard to imagine what would. People we barely know of -- the director of NSA, the eleven judges on FISC, who knows who else -- are running the deep state. The actual president seems just fine with everything it's doing, or is so weak-kneed he can't see fit to put an end to it. I'm not sure which is worse.

We have known for many years that corporate money in politics had essentially bought Congress at the expense of the middle class, the environment, and other popular causes. The Israel Lobby owns U.S. policy in the Middle East. Other lobbies -- Big Pharma, military contractors, agribusiness -- have corrupted policy for profiteering through campaign spending and other old tricks of the Washington trade. But the deep state is a different phenomenon -- less about money or corporate privilege, far more about a security pathology that has become embedded, empowered, and rogue, constitutional governance be damned. The seduction of policymakers by corporate money is sad. The psychotic, parallel state is terrifying.
User avatar
beeline
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Killadelphia, PA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:19 pm

Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
• Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism
• Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch
• Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls
• Company says it is legally compelled to comply

Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, Laura Poitras, Spencer Ackerman and Dominic Rushe
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 July 2013 13.53 EDT
Jump to comments (429)

Skype worked with intelligence agencies last year to allow Prism to collect video and audio conversations. Photograph: Patrick Sinkel/AP
Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.

The files provided by Edward Snowden illustrate the scale of co-operation between Silicon Valley and the intelligence agencies over the last three years. They also shed new light on the workings of the top-secret Prism program, which was disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post last month.

The documents show that:

• Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal;

• The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on Outlook.com, including Hotmail;

• The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide;

• Microsoft also worked with the FBI's Data Intercept Unit to "understand" potential issues with a feature in Outlook.com that allows users to create email aliases;

• Skype, which was bought by Microsoft in October 2011, worked with intelligence agencies last year to allow Prism to collect video of conversations as well as audio;

• Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a "team sport".

The latest NSA revelations further expose the tensions between Silicon Valley and the Obama administration. All the major tech firms are lobbying the government to allow them to disclose more fully the extent and nature of their co-operation with the NSA to meet their customers' privacy concerns. Privately, tech executives are at pains to distance themselves from claims of collaboration and teamwork given by the NSA documents, and insist the process is driven by legal compulsion.

In a statement, Microsoft said: "When we upgrade or update products we aren't absolved from the need to comply with existing or future lawful demands." The company reiterated its argument that it provides customer data "only in response to government demands and we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers".

In June, the Guardian revealed that the NSA claimed to have "direct access" through the Prism program to the systems of many major internet companies, including Microsoft, Skype, Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo.

Blanket orders from the secret surveillance court allow these communications to be collected without an individual warrant if the NSA operative has a 51% belief that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time. Targeting US citizens does require an individual warrant, but the NSA is able to collect Americans' communications without a warrant if the target is a foreign national located overseas.

Since Prism's existence became public, Microsoft and the other companies listed on the NSA documents as providers have denied all knowledge of the program and insisted that the intelligence agencies do not have back doors into their systems.

Microsoft's latest marketing campaign, launched in April, emphasizes its commitment to privacy with the slogan: "Your privacy is our priority."

Similarly, Skype's privacy policy states: "Skype is committed to respecting your privacy and the confidentiality of your personal data, traffic data and communications content."

But internal NSA newsletters, marked top secret, suggest the co-operation between the intelligence community and the companies is deep and ongoing.

The latest documents come from the NSA's Special Source Operations (SSO) division, described by Snowden as the "crown jewel" of the agency. It is responsible for all programs aimed at US communications systems through corporate partnerships such as Prism.

The files show that the NSA became concerned about the interception of encrypted chats on Microsoft's Outlook.com portal from the moment the company began testing the service in July last year.

Within five months, the documents explain, Microsoft and the FBI had come up with a solution that allowed the NSA to circumvent encryption on Outlook.com chats

A newsletter entry dated 26 December 2012 states: "MS [Microsoft], working with the FBI, developed a surveillance capability to deal" with the issue. "These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012."

Two months later, in February this year, Microsoft officially launched the Outlook.com portal.

Another newsletter entry stated that NSA already had pre-encryption access to Outlook email. "For Prism collection against Hotmail, Live, and Outlook.com emails will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption."

Microsoft's co-operation was not limited to Outlook.com. An entry dated 8 April 2013 describes how the company worked "for many months" with the FBI – which acts as the liaison between the intelligence agencies and Silicon Valley on Prism – to allow Prism access without separate authorization to its cloud storage service SkyDrive.

The document describes how this access "means that analysts will no longer have to make a special request to SSO for this – a process step that many analysts may not have known about".

The NSA explained that "this new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response". It continued: "This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking and collection solution established."

A separate entry identified another area for collaboration. "The FBI Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) team is working with Microsoft to understand an additional feature in Outlook.com which allows users to create email aliases, which may affect our tasking processes."

The NSA has devoted substantial efforts in the last two years to work with Microsoft to ensure increased access to Skype, which has an estimated 663 million global users.

One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14 July 2012. "The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete 'picture'," it says.

Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011.

According to the NSA documents, work had begun on smoothly integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010, but it was not until 4 February 2011 that the company was served with a directive to comply signed by the attorney general.

The NSA was able to start tasking Skype communications the following day, and collection began on 6 February. "Feedback indicated that a collected Skype call was very clear and the metadata looked complete," the document stated, praising the co-operation between NSA teams and the FBI. "Collaborative teamwork was the key to the successful addition of another provider to the Prism system."

ACLU technology expert Chris Soghoian said the revelations would surprise many Skype users. "In the past, Skype made affirmative promises to users about their inability to perform wiretaps," he said. "It's hard to square Microsoft's secret collaboration with the NSA with its high-profile efforts to compete on privacy with Google."

The information the NSA collects from Prism is routinely shared with both the FBI and CIA. A 3 August 2012 newsletter describes how the NSA has recently expanded sharing with the other two agencies.

The NSA, the entry reveals, has even automated the sharing of aspects of Prism, using software that "enables our partners to see which selectors [search terms] the National Security Agency has tasked to Prism".

The document continues: "The FBI and CIA then can request a copy of Prism collection of any selector…" As a result, the author notes: "these two activities underscore the point that Prism is a team sport!"

In its statement to the Guardian, Microsoft said:

We have clear principles which guide the response across our entire company to government demands for customer information for both law enforcement and national security issues. First, we take our commitments to our customers and to compliance with applicable law very seriously, so we provide customer data only in response to legal processes.

Second, our compliance team examines all demands very closely, and we reject them if we believe they aren't valid. Third, we only ever comply with orders about specific accounts or identifiers, and we would not respond to the kind of blanket orders discussed in the press over the past few weeks, as the volumes documented in our most recent disclosure clearly illustrate.

Finally when we upgrade or update products legal obligations may in some circumstances require that we maintain the ability to provide information in response to a law enforcement or national security request. There are aspects of this debate that we wish we were able to discuss more freely. That's why we've argued for additional transparency that would help everyone understand and debate these important issues.

In a joint statement, Shawn Turner, spokesman for the director of National Intelligence, and Judith Emmel, spokeswoman for the NSA, said:

The articles describe court-ordered surveillance – and a US company's efforts to comply with these legally mandated requirements. The US operates its programs under a strict oversight regime, with careful monitoring by the courts, Congress and the Director of National Intelligence. Not all countries have equivalent oversight requirements to protect civil liberties and privacy.

They added: "In practice, US companies put energy, focus and commitment into consistently protecting the privacy of their customers around the world, while meeting their obligations under the laws of the US and other countries in which they operate."
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:05 pm

PRISM’s Controversial Forerunner
July 11, 2013
Using a powerful computer program known as PRISM, the U.S. government has been downloading vast amounts of communications data and mining it for counterterrorism purposes. But these capabilities began more than three decades ago with the controversial PROMIS software, Richard L. Fricker reports.

By Richard L. Fricker

Long before Edward Snowden’s claims or revelations that the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency were monitoring and tracking the Internet, cell phones, e-mails and any other electronic communication they could get their hands on using a program known as PRISM, there existed PROMIS [Prosecutors Management Information Systems].

PROMIS was designed in the late 1970s and ‘80s to bring Department of Justice criminal case management from the dark ages into the light of the computer age. In the spring of 1981, the Reagan Administration hailed PROMIS as one of law enforcements greatest assets. By 1983, PROMIS had morphed into the behemoth of intelligence gathering. It was not state of the art – it was the art.


Bill Hamilton, developer of the PROMIS software, and his wife Nancy, who founded Inslaw Inc.
Over the ensuing decades PROMIS is reported to have been used by the DOJ, CIA, NSA, and several foreign intelligence agencies including Israel’s Mossad. The ownership of PROMIS has been the subject of federal court hearings and a congressional investigation.

The capabilities of PROMIS as a data collection and tracking program have never been a secret. But the only discussion of PROMIS has been about theft and black-market sales. Neither the courts nor Congress have ever inquired as to privacy issues or the ethics of the program. There has been no rending of political robes as seen with the Snowden case. In fact, the function of PROMIS has been discussed in open court and various public arenas.

PROMIS is a tracking program with enhancements by Washington, DC-based Inslaw Inc., owned by Bill and Nancy Hamilton. PROMIS was developed under a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration [LEAA] grant. Bill Hamilton was employed by NSA for six years. He left the agency in 1966.

PROMIS was designed to track the vast amount of criminal cases piling up in DOJ offices across the country. Bill Hamilton, in an interview for this story, recounted, “It was always a tracking program. It was designed to keep track of cases in local U.S. Attorneys’ offices, which means street crimes, keep track of the scheduled events in court, what actually takes place, who’s there, witnesses, police officers, conclusions, convictions, acquittals, whatever.”

As the LEAA dissolved in the late days of the Carter Administration, the Hamiltons formed Inslaw and began to make modifications to the public domain PROMIS. The short version: as originally designed, PROMIS ran only on 16-bit computers, using their own funds. INSLAW converted the program to run on 32-bit VAX computers which were massive for their time.

The Reagan administration was very taken with the Inslaw version of PROMIS. In March 1982 Inslaw was awarded $9.6 million to install the program in 20 U.S. Attorney’s offices, with further installations in the remaining 74 offices, if successful. This would be the last government contact the Hamiltons would receive, not because the system failed – quite the contrary, it was too successful.

Hamilton explained, “We developed it originally just for prosecutors. But some of our users wanted to have it shared with the courts and the police. So, the software was engineered to make it adaptable. In making it highly adaptable, a byproduct was to make it useable for non-prosecutor tracking and that made it adaptable totally outside the criminal justice system.”

It became obvious with the latest round of modifications any data system could be integrated into PROMIS. And those data systems could interact – that is, combine – with each other forming a massive tracking data base of people via government documents such as birth and death certificates, licenses, mortgages, lawsuits or anything else kept in a data base. PROMIS could also track banking transactions, arms shipments, communications, airplane parts – again, anything kept in a data base.

With the discovery of these new capabilities Inslaw’s problems began. Unknowingly, the Hamiltons had embarked on an odyssey winding from the White House and the heart of the Reagan inner circle, bankruptcy court, a congressional investigation, secret informants, the CIA, NSA, and the Mossad.

The odyssey began in February 1983 when Dr. Ben Orr, an Israeli prosecutor, came to Hamilton’s office for a demonstration. He left, never placed an order and was never seen again. This was just one of the many demonstrations the company provided potential customers and the press. There was no shroud of secrecy about PROMIS or its capabilities.

Shortly after Dr. Orr’s visit, DOJ terminated payments to Inslaw, but refused to return the software. The company soon [June 1986] found its way into bankruptcy court. Inslaw put forth the claim that DOJ had stolen their software and made a concerted effort to drive them out of business. Bankruptcy Judge George Bason agreed.

In a 216-page opinion delivered in 1987, Judge Bason wrote that DOJ used “trickery, fraud and deceit” to steal PROMIS. He was later overruled by the DC District Court of Appeals on jurisdictional grounds. A previous district court supported his findings that PROMIS had been stolen. Bason became one of the very few Bankruptcy judges to not be re-appointed.

As the PROMIS odyssey continued, information began to surface that DOJ had provided the NSA and CIA with the enhanced 32-bit PROMIS. Stories began to circulate that friends of the Reagan Administration were selling black-market versions of PROMIS to anyone willing to pay the price.

Time and time again the veracity of government employees was called into question. In 1989 the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jack Brooks D-Texas, launched what would become a three-year investigation into the theft of PROMIS and DOJ efforts to drive INSLAW out of business.

The Brooks report – dated Aug. 11, 1992 – not only agreed with Bason’s findings but went further: “High government officials were involved … individuals testified under oath that Inslaw’s PROMIS software was stolen and distributed internationally in order to provide financial gain and to further intelligence and foreign policy objectives.”

The report includes scathing comments about former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and several ranking DOJ staffers. Brooks recommended a settlement of Inslaw claims for damages and the appointment of a special prosecutor. Neither happened. Brooks said in an interview at the time, “[Inslaw] was ravaged by the Justice Department.” They were, he said, “treated like dogs.”

By this time nothing in the report surprised the Hamiltons. Seven months earlier they had discovered that their 1983 visitor, Dr. Ben Orr, was in fact Rafael Etian, chief of the Israeli Defense Force’s [IDF] anti-terrorism intelligence unit. They further learned he left Washington carrying a copy of PROMIS.

The DOJ explanation was that he was given the 16-bit version, not the new improved 32-bit VAX version. The question would be: why the subterfuge? And why show off the superior 32-bit VAX version and then only provide the cheaper model? DOJ has never answered the question.

Through all this, Inslaw has survived; Ireland installed PROMIS for case management, to track land records and in the bank credit system. Hamilton noted that every credit card transaction is tracked by PROMIS.

The Netherlands uses the program to keep track of all the inmates in their prison system. The city of Rome has PROMIS for use in their tax office. In fact PROMIS is being legally used in several countries around the world.

Illegally? Who knows. The Canadian government once wrote Inslaw asking for an operating manual. Inslaw never sold PROMIS to Canada. A similar event popped up with Lithuania when a member of their parliament asked for help with their PROMIS program. In each case, when told they may have a bootleg version, the reply was, it must be a different PROMIS.

To date, Inslaw has never received a dime for any government recommended settlements, some as high as $50 million.

Hamilton has declined to suggest that PROMIS was the frontrunner to PRISM. He said flatly in the interview for this article that his only information about PRISM is from news accounts.

Regardless of the Inslaw affair, PROMIS is still out there, still tracking whatever its masters require. And still, to this day, no one in government or otherwise has inquired, not about what PROMIS can do, but rather what is PROMIS doing, for whom and why.

PROMIS has been toiling in the intelligence caverns for nearly 30 years – that’s a lot of data consumption, that’s a lot of tracking. Where is the PROMIS data? Compared to 30 years of information gathering and tracking by PROMIS, PRISM could be considered the equivalent of digital binge drinking.

Richard L. Fricker lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is a regular contributor to The Oklahoma Observer, where this article first appeared. His latest book, The Last Day of the War, is available at https://www.createspace.com/3804081 or at www.richardfricker.com. The entire story of the PROMIS software, Inslaw and what became known as “The Octopus” can be found in Fricker’s article that appeared in Wired magazine: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/inslaw.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:48 pm

NSA Even Spied on Google Maps Searches, Documents Suggest
By Ryan Gallagher | Posted Thursday, July 11, 2013, at 3:46 PM
Image
Even Google Maps searches might not be safe from the NSA.
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
With its PRISM Internet surveillance program, the National Security Agency can reportedly monitor targets’ emails and do live surveillance of Google searches and other data. Now, the latest batch of revealed secret documents suggests the agency may have the ability to spy on Google Maps use, too.

In recent days, Brazilian newspaper O Globo has been publishing details about the NSA’s monitoring of email and phone call metadata across Latin America. O Globo, working in partnership with the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, has been revealing information gleaned from secret NSA documents disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The same trove of documents has been the source of a series of explosive scoops that have put the spotlight on the extent of the NSA’s ability to monitor Internet and phone communications in the United States and internationally.

Over the weekend, O Globo published a handful of new top-secret NSA PowerPoint slides. One of the slides disclosed the existence of an NSA program called “XKEYSCORE,” which appears to involve the mass storage of international Internet metadata—including information about emails, phone calls, log-ins, and other user activity—that can later be mined, or “queried,” by an NSA analyst from a computer.

Image
One of the PowerPoint slides published by O Globo
Screengrab via O Globo.
Notably, another of the XKEYSCORE slides suggests that the NSA can monitor a person’s Google Maps activity—and use this as a basis to follow up any activity deemed suspicious with further investigation. The slide notes: “My target uses Google maps to scope target locations—can I use this information to determine his email address? What about the Web searches—do any look suspicious?” It adds: “XKEYSCORE extracts and databases these events, including all web-based searches, which can be retrospectively queried.”

It’s unclear how up to date the XKEYSCORE PowerPoints are and whether this program is still active. Either way, the slides are highly revealing. It is possible that they date from pre-2011, before Google made the decision to give all users’ the ability to encrypt Google Maps sessions using the SSL protocol. Without SSL encryption turned on, which shows in Internet browsers as HTTPS unlike unencrypted HTTP, the information you are sending over the Internet can be intercepted easily by anyone who has access to the data as it is being communicated over a network.

It seems likely that prior to Google adopting SSL for its maps sessions, the NSA was taking advantage of this by mining data about users’ Google activity directly from U.S. and international networks. Information published by the Guardian last month showed that the NSA appears to be collecting billions of what it calls “digital network intelligence” records from Internet infrastructure across the world. Separately, the Associated Press recently reported that the agency is operating a large surveillance program that “snatches data as it passes through the fiber optic cables that make up the Internet’s backbone.”

Although Google Maps sessions are now automatically encrypted, which may have stifled the NSA’s snooping somewhat, it is also possible that the agency can still get access to Google Maps data by demanding that the company turn it over as part of orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act. In addition, not all Google searches are encrypted—unless you are logged in to a Google account or direct your browser to https://encrypted.google.com—meaning that the NSA is still likely collecting huge troves of users’ searches by siphoning data off of networks it is tapping in to.

I asked Google whether it was able to hand over Google Maps sessions in real-time under a FISA order, but the company said it could not comment. "At some point we may expand our transparency report to cover this topic in more depth, but until then I'm not able to provide additional information for you," spokesman Chris Gaither told me. I also asked Gaither why the Google does not automatically encrypt all of its searches in order to thwart spies mining the data directly off of networks. He said that Google had “worked hard over the past few years to increase our services’ use of SSL encryption” and was “committed to adding more support for SSL.”

But you don’t have to wait on Google to take action. If you are concerned about the NSA snooping on searches and maps sessions, there are a range of tools available to browse the Internet more securely. You can use Tor browser or a Virtual Private Network to conceal your IP address, both of which can help anonymize your Internet sessions. Alternatively, you can switch to using privacy friendly search engines like Ixquick and DuckDuckGo, which are committed to not storing data about users’ searches and have enjoyed a boom in popularity in recent weeks following the revelations about the scope of the NSA’s surveillance programs.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Inslaw, Inc. | Wikipedia

Postby Allegro » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:32 pm

Follows are the introductory paragraphs for the Inslaw case as documented in Wikipedia as of this date. The word count for the entire text is in excess of 4900. An interesting read. Highlights mine.

_________________
    Inslaw, Inc. is a small, Washington, D.C.-based, information technology company. In the mid-1970s, Inslaw developed for the United States Department of Justice a highly efficient, people-tracking, computer program known as Prosecutor’s Management Information System (Promis). Inslaw’s principal owners, William Anthony Hamilton and his wife, Nancy Burke Hamilton, later sued the United States Government (acting as principal to the Department of Justice) for not complying with the terms of the Promis contract and for refusing to pay for an enhanced version of Promis once delivered. This allegation of software piracy led to three trials in separate federal courts and two congressional hearings.

    During ensuing investigations, the Department of Justice was accused of deliberately attempting to drive Inslaw into Chapter 7 liquidation; and of distributing and selling stolen software for covert intelligence operations of foreign governments such as Canada, Israel, Singapore, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan; and of becoming directly involved in murder.

    Later developments implied that derivative versions of Enhanced Promis sold on the black market may have become the high-tech tools of worldwide terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden and international money launderers and thieves.
Art will be the last bastion when all else fades away.
~ Timothy White (b 1952), American rock music journalist
_________________
User avatar
Allegro
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:44 pm
Location: just right of Orion
Blog: View Blog (144)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby Elvis » Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:55 am

While browsing Cryptome I found this interesting bit, apparently a Booz Allen Hamilton in-house document/article. I thought the phrase "threat surface" was funny. I highlighted a few, um, highlights. It's about "organizations" fighting malware threats, but the title neatly describes what the NSA does:

Cyber Hunting: Proactively Track Anomalies to Inform Risk Decisions

by Richard Stotts and Scot Lippenholz , Booz Allen Hamilton

The number and diversity of cyber attack scenarios and the motivations that inspire the actors who launch them continue to escalate and challenge enterprise cybersecurity practitioners. There is no shortage of targeted victims either. Government organizations, defense contractors, critical infrastructure owners and commercial enterprises are all vulnerable to attack.

The range of intrusion methodologies includes socially engineered phishing emails used to gain access to enterprise networks, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) nuisance attacks to disrupt services or more serious smokescreen hoaxes to exfiltrate confidential information, and increasingly sophisticated and targeted Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) aimed at stealing intellectual property. Adversaries include hacktivists, organized crime syndicates, nation-states and terrorists. Motivations for cyber warfare are rooted in political, economic military and criminal agendas.

The cyber threat landscape, now a complex tapestry encompassing this broad range of elements, has both public- and private-sector organizations in every industry sector on the hunt for tactical and strategic solutions that ensure protection of their critical assets.

ATTACK EVOLUTION SNAPSHOT: FROM WORMS TO STUXNET

Looking back, early cyber exploits, such as relatively simplistic worm attacks, were launched by amateur digital mischief makers to demonstrate technological acumen. Then it was discovered that malicious software could be profitable, and along came the first versions of DDoS attacks, followed by the “electronic Pearl Harbor” incident in 2007 in which approximately 12 terabytes of data (equivalent to U.S. Library of Congress) were stolen from federal government organizations, as described in a June 2010 60 Minutes segment entitled “Cyber War: Sabotaging the System.” Next, in 2010, the military-grade Stuxnet cyber weapon demonstrated the ability to plant malware on networks and establish a foundation for broader, well-orchestrated future attacks to destroy critical infrastructure.

HIDDEN ANOMALIES PRESENT GREATEST DANGER

Today’s organizations are well aware of this sobering evolution and the current dynamic threat environment. They have their hands full defending against the attack du jour, but adopting a viewpoint that assumes nothing else malicious is going on beyond the current infiltration is a dangerous proposition. While all efforts and energy are dedicated to responding to the latest attack, attention is diverted from monitoring other potential threat vectors where the most insidious, long-term damage may be percolating.

The problem is most government and commercial entities just don’t have the resources required to simultaneously manage all these balls in the air. The sophistication, experience and technical skills of enterprise IT staff typically reveal limited scalability. If the people assigned to this role are not continuously focused on identifying and addressing malware, their expertise erodes rapidly. So it’s difficult for organizations to build and maintain the infrastructure and capabilities needed to effectively monitor and analyze data on hundreds of thousands of systems on a daily basis. Even among larger organizations that do have the ability to collect anomalous activity data, most are not equipped to quickly and cost effectively distinguish between benign and malicious traffic.

In a recent test scenario, random phishing attack emails containing malware-infested links and attachments were sent to 160 of the 600 employees in a federal government agency. Despite mandatory in-house training programs that cover how to recognize and respond to such social engineering exploits, 35 of the 160 targeted users clicked on the malware-infested links.


Every employee, customer and vendor interface represents a potential vulnerability for the corporate network and infrastructure, so the scope of the challenge reaches far beyond an examination of internal factors. The entire supply chain injects a scale of magnitude that exponentially expands the organization’s threat surface. In the financial services industry, for instance, the extraordinary number of interfaces maintained between banks and their account holders and business partners drastically increases the number of opportunities for bad actors to infiltrate networks.

Many organizations remain unaware of blended attacks lurking beneath the surface of the most visible or immediate threat until law enforcement notifies them of a network compromise. Agencies like the FBI use wire taps to look for command-and-control malware and monitor known data exfiltration sites for suspicious activity. Hunting capabilities empower enterprises to proactively search for and discover network anomalies before receiving a call from the authorities.

HUNTING CAPABILITIES HELP LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

Given the staggering amount of data now requiring protection and the broadening array of malware and tactics available to perpetrators, organizations must address this challenge from a selective perspective. Enterprises can afford to collect only the data they are able to process; the rest is useless.

Comprehensive threat intelligence and analytics resources are required to identify adversary intentions and capabilities across the constantly evolving threat surface, not just in any one silo. Underlying this threat intelligence backbone, a support structure comprised of technology and process experts equipped to collect and process critical data that reveals unknown malware is essential.

In addition to response and remediation to counter the latest attacks, organizations must establish a baseline that reveals the current state of cybersecurity on their enterprise networks. Then, hunting capabilities can be used to identify all anomalous activity in order to gain a holistic view of vulnerabilities in the cyber environment so that risks can be aggressively mitigated. Unlike threat reporting services that rely on large systems and open source research designed to identify when attacks are occurring, hunting technologies proactively determine the nature and origins of attacker footprints already evident on the network.

These capabilities allow organizations to find unknown malware that cannot be identified or blocked by off-the-shelf, signature-based perimeter defenses. At least half of all cyber hunting expeditions typically uncover the kinds of stealth, targeted malware that antivirus will never detect and that presents real and imminent danger to the enterprise. Hunting methodologies sniff out smokescreens intended to mask more sophisticated social engineering exploits that give attackers ongoing access to networks for future compromise. Statistical anomalous analysis enables organizations to find the tracks that sophisticated adversaries hope will remain hidden.

“Consumers and businesses spend billions of dollars every year on antivirus software. But these programs rarely, if ever, block freshly minted computer viruses, experts say, because the virus creators move too quickly.” A group of researchers recently collected and analyzed 82 new computer viruses and put them up against more than 40 leading antivirus products. They found that the initial detection rate was less than 5 percent.
--New York Times, December 31, 2012


After anomalous activity is identified, analysis determines if it is benign or malicious, and if the latter, an intrusion forensics workup reveals all files, tools, and other indicators of compromise associated with the malware on a particular workstation. Then, by casting a wider net, it’s possible to determine lateral damage—other infected machines on the enterprise network.

ENTERPRISE RISK EQUATION DEMANDS COMBINED TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC RESPONSE

The critical importance of hunting capabilities reaches beyond the tactical elements described above. As an organization improves its ability to leverage its threat intelligence support structure to gain a better understanding of adversary intentions and capabilities, visibility of the attack surface improves across all elements of people, process, policy and technology. This enables a clearer view of vulnerabilities and risk exposure across all attack surfaces, particularly with respect to where the enterprise’s most critical data resides. Understanding the nature of anomalous activity and its potential impact allows enterprise stakeholders to make informed business decisions about mitigation and remediation.

The overriding tendency to focus on tactical solutions that address the most immediate problems must be balanced with longer-term strategies. The pervasive propagation of more advanced, undetectable strains of malware that bypass best-in-class cybersecurity practices coupled with an escalating number of socially engineered access points make hunting capabilities a mandatory element of the enterprise defense arsenal. Savvy perpetrators will continue to try to stay a step ahead by employing a vexing variety of attack tactics for which there are no magic bullets. But the more enterprises can stay abreast of anomalous activity, the more they will be able to keep pace with their adversaries and proactively protect vital assets

http://cryptome.org/2013/07/bah-gerencser-13-0708.pdf

The page, if you go there, is really about Mark Gerencser, who "has retired from his position as an executive vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton." John Young wonders if Gerencser is the "First Booz Allen Casualty of Snowden Affair." His lengthy professional bio, posted on the page, says, "Gerencser has led Booz Allen’s national security business and created its homeland security practice."
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:44 am




Christopher Soghoian ‏@csoghoian 15h
Scroogled: To openly violate your privacy.
Microshafted: To secretly collaborate with NSA spying while promising to protect your privacy.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:11 pm

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

PROMIS

Nothing Is Secret (1 of 4)
SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 2010 AT 2:49 AM
Insight on the News (also called just Insight) was an American conservative online and print news magazine. It ceased publication in 2008. It was owned by Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, which also owns the Washington Times, United Press International, and other media through News World Communications.

Nothing Is Secret
Insight on the News, Jan 29, 2001
by Kelly Patricia O’Meara

Insight uncovers a spy probe in the United States by the Canadian government into the theft of computer software that allegedly allows surveillance of top-secret government computer systems.
“Good morning, Mr. McDade. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has reason to believe that the national security of Canada has been compromised. A trojan horse, or back door, allegedly has been found in computer systems in the nation’s top law-enforcement and intelligence organizations.

“Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to establish whether this is the PROMIS software reportedly stolen in the early 1980s from William and Nancy Hamilton, owners of Inslaw Inc., and reportedly modified for international espionage. As always, should you or any of your associates be caught, the governments of Canada and the United States will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This recording will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Sean.”

Sounds like the opening taped message from an episode of the 1960s TV action series Mission Impossible. But just such a mission was offered — and accepted — by two investigators of the National Security Section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The Mounties then covertly entered the United States in February of last year and for nearly eight months conducted a secret investigation into the theft of the PROMIS software and whether and by whom it had been obtained for backdoor spying. PROMIS is a universal bridge to the forest of computer systems. It allows covert and undetectable surveillance, and it and its related successors are unimaginably important in the new age of communications warfare.


In this exclusive investigative series Insight tracks the Mounties and explores the mysteries pursued by the RCMP, including allegations involving a gang of characters believed to be associated with the suspected theft of PROMIS, swarms of spies (or the “spookloop” as the Mounties called them), the Mafia, big-time money laundering, murder, international arms smuggling and illegal drugs — to name but a few aspects of the still-secret RCMP probe. But the keystone to this RCMP investigation is PROMIS, that universal bridge and monitoring system, which stands for Prosecutor’s Management Information System — a breakthrough computer software program originally developed in the early 1970s by the Hamiltons for case management by U.S. prosecutors. The first version of PROMIS was owned by the government since the development money was provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ), but something went awry on the way to proprietary development.

For more than 15 years the story of the allegedly pirated Hamilton software, and how it may have wound up in the hands of the spy agencies of the world, has been hotly pursued by law-enforcement agencies, private detectives, journalists, congressional investigators, U.S. Customs and assorted U.S. attorneys. Even independent researchers have taken on the role of counterespionage agents in a quest to uncover the truth about this allegedly ongoing penetration of security.

But each new U.S. investigation has failed fully to determine what happened. While the Mounties encountered a similar fate, officers Sean McDade and Randy Buffam have been the most successful to date. Last May, with the assistance of Hercules, Calif., detective Sue Todd, the Mounties walked away with a package of startling evidence that many believe will solve the case of the pirated software and its reported continuing use for international espionage and a host of other illegal activities.

Insight has spent months retracing the steps of the two RCMP officers and interviewing their sources, poring over copies of documents they secured, listening to tape recordings of meetings in which they were involved and reviewing scores of reports and depositions that have been locked up for years.

The result is this first installment of a four-part investigative report about how the Mounties conducted their covert border crossings and investigation that ranged across the United States and back again before returning to Canada where they discovered their cover had been blown. By late summer of 2000 the Canadian press was reporting not only the existence of this secret national-security probe — “Project Abbreviation” — but that if the reported allegations prove true “it would be the biggest-ever breach of Canada’s national security.” Confusing official comments about the probe added further mystery. But Insight has confirmed many of the details, including the fact that the investigation is continuing. And it’s serious stuff.

McDade began his extended trip into international espionage early last year. It began at least on Jan. 19, 2000, with an e-mail that said: “I am looking to contact Carol (Cheri) regarding a matter that has surfaced in the past. If this e-mail account is still active, please reply and I will in turn forward a Canadian phone number and explain my position and reason for request.”

This communication, from e-mail account simorp (PROMIS spelled backward), was the first of hundreds sent during an eight-month period from “dear hunter,” also known as Sean McDade. It reached Cheri Seymour, a Southern California journalist, private detective and author of a well-regarded book, Committee of the States.

Seymour became one of the most important of McDade’s contacts during the Mounties’ continuing investigation. Although she had agreed to remain silent about their probe until McDade filed a report with his superiors, she changed her mind when news of the probe began to leak in the Canadian press. It was then that the Southern Californian contacted Insight and offered to share what she knew about the investigation if this magazine would look into the story. And what a story it is.

A petite, attractive, unassuming middle-aged woman, Seymour looks more like a violinist in a symphony orchestra than an international sleuth. But one quickly becomes aware of the depth of her knowledge not only of the alleged theft of the PROMIS software, but also of other reported illegal activities and dangerous characters associated with it.

Seymour’s involvement with PROMIS began more than a decade ago while working as an investigative reporter on an unrelated story about high-level corruption within the sheriff’s department of the Central California town of Mariposa, near Yosemite National Park, where deputies reportedly were involved in illegal-drug activity. The dozen or so who were not involved repeatedly had begged the journalist to conduct an investigation. When she learned that one of the officers had taken the complaints to the state attorney general in Sacramento and within weeks was reported missing in an alleged boating accident on nearby Lake McClure, she launched her probe.

The owner of the local newspaper, the Mariposa Guide, in time contacted ABC television producer Don Thrasher and the story of the corruption within the Mariposa Sheriff’s Department ran in 1991 on ABC’s prime-time television news program 20/20. Seymour’s investigation is chronicled in a draft manuscript called the “Last Circle,” written under her pseudonym Carol Marshall but made available anonymously on the Internet in 1997. PROMIS then was only a sidebar to the larger story, but it was this obscure Internet posting that led RCMP investigators McDade and Buffam to Seymour’s living room two years later.

According to Seymour: “Nothing [previously] came of the work I did. Even though in October of 1992 I had sent a synopsis of my work to John Cohen, lead investigator on the House Judiciary Committee, looking into the theft of PROMIS and its possible connections to the savage death of freelance journalist Danny Casolaro. But by then the committee had completed its report and published its findings. It was a closed case. Nothing ever happened with the connections I was able to make among the players involved in the theft of PROMIS and illegal drug trafficking and money laundering.” That is, until McDade sent his first cryptic e-mail.

Within a week the Mountie had arranged to meet Seymour at her home to discuss aspects of his own secret investigation and begin the laborious task of copying thousands of documents Seymour had collected from an abandoned trailer in Death Valley belonging to a man at or near the center of the PROMIS controversy, Michael Riconosciuto, a boy genius, entrepreneur, convicted felon — and the man who has claimed that he modified the pirated PROMIS software. The documents provided specific information about Riconosciuto’s connections to the Cabazon Indian Reservation, where he claims to have carried out the modification, but they also painted a clear picture of the men with whom Riconosciuto associated, including mob figures, high-level government officials, intelligence and law-enforcement officers and informants — even convicted murderers.

Before McDade focused on a three-day copying frenzy, the Mountie gathered Todd, Seymour and an impartial observer invited by Seymour to corroborate the meeting around Seymour’s dining-room table and began to tell a dramatic tale of government lies and international espionage.

“I sat there with my mouth wide open and my eyes practically popping out of my head — you know, that deer-in-the-headlights look,” Seymour recounts. “I couldn’t believe what this guy was telling us. It wasn’t anything I anticipated or even was prepared to hear.” She says, “McDade told us his investigation had to do with locating information on the possible sale of PROMIS software to the RCMP in the mid-1980s. He had found evidence in RCMP files that PROMIS may have been installed in the Canadian computer systems, and he said an investigation was initiated by his superiors at the RCMP.”

According to Seymour, “McDade said that the details of his findings in Canada could conceivably cause a major scandal in both Canada and the United States…. He said if his investigation is successful it could cause the entire Republican Party to be dismantled — that it would cease to exist in the U.S.” Hyperbole, perhaps, but bizarre stuff from a professional lawman.

“Then,” continues Seymour, “he said something that was just really out there. He stood in my dining room with a straight face and told us that … more than one presidential administration will be exposed for their knowledge of the PROMIS software transactions. He said that high-ranking Canadian government officials may have unlawfully purchased the PROMIS software from high-ranking U.S. government officials in the Reagan/Bush administration, and he further stated that the RCMP has located numerous banks around the world that have been used by these U.S. officials to launder the money from the sale of the PROMIS software.”

Seymour was stunned. “First,” she says, “I wondered if this guy was for real and, second, did he have something against Republicans.” Just when she thought things couldn’t get any weirder, “McDade detailed a December 1999 meeting at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico attended by the heads of the intelligence divisions of the U.S. [CIA], Great Britain [MI6], Israel [Mossad] and Canada [CSIS]. McDade said the topic of the discussion was UNIQUE ELEMENTS, and that during this meeting it allegedly was revealed that all four allied nations share computer systems and have for years. The meeting was called after a glitch was found in a British computer system that had caused the loss of historical case data.”

McDade continued with this scenario by telling the astonished group: “The Israeli Mossad may have modified the original PROMIS modification [the first back door] so it became a two-way back door, allowing the Israelis access to top U.S. weapons secrets at Los Alamos and other classified installations. The Israelis may now possess all the nuclear secrets of the United States.”

According to Seymour, he concluded by saying that “the Jonathan Pollard [spy] case is insignificant by comparison to the current crisis.”

This was pretty heavy stuff for a foreign law-enforcement agent to be bandying with complete strangers. And it made those present uncomfortable. Was McDade making up wild tales for some as yet unrevealed purpose or was he, in fact, reporting what he knew to be true based on information he had gleaned from his investigation?

Insight has tried repeatedly to contact McDade and his superiors to discuss the Mountie’s accounts of espionage and other crimes only to be rebuffed through official channels. But in carefully assembling and independently checking disparate pieces of the McDade story line Insight was able to confirm that there was indeed a December 1999 meeting at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the topic of the meeting was, indeed, code-named UNIQUE ELEMENTS.

Seymour never learned further details about that meeting, though she tried, alerting several U.S. senators, including Charles Robb, D-Va., Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Richard Bryan, D-Nev., about what McDade had told her in February — nearly four months before the public was made aware of massive computer problems at Los Alamos (see “DOE ‘Green Book’ Secrets Exposed,” Jan. 1). Ironically, Congress was probing such lapses, but only Bob Simon, Bingaman’s staff director on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, responded. Simon advised that he would show the letter to the senator and possibly refer “some or all of the information in the letter to Ed Curran, director of the Department of Energy’s [DOE] Office of Counterintelligence.”

Seymour never had any further communication from Bingaman’s office, the DOE or any federal investigator seeking to discover which “foreign agent” had told her of severe computer leakage from Los Alamos long before it became public knowledge.

How McDade knew what he claimed may never be made public. But what is known can be pieced together from the many contacts he had with individuals having historical knowledge of the allegations surrounding PROMIS and a host of other seemingly unrelated criminal enterprises and crimes.

For instance, in January 2000 McDade contacted PROMIS developers and owners Bill and Nancy Hamilton, explaining what his investigation was about; what, to date, had surfaced; and what the implications might be. “McDade said my government made two untruthful statements in 1991 [the year congressional hearings were held on the theft of PROMIS],” Bill Hamilton tells Insight. “The first was that they [Canada] had developed the software in-house. McDade said that wasn’t true, it just materialized one day out of nowhere. The second untruth was that they [the Canadian government] had investigated this. McDade said that his investigation was the first.”

Hamilton further explained that “McDade believed PROMIS software was being used to compromise their [Canada's] national security.” Needless to say, this was interesting news to Hamilton, given that it was “the second time the Canadian government has said they have our software, only to retract the admission later.” The first time was in 1991, he recalls. “They contacted us to see if we had a French-language version because they said they only had the English version — which, by the way, we did not sell to them. At first we didn’t take it seriously because it was before we were aware that the software was reportedly being used in intelligence. We just knew that the U.S. Department of Justice acted rather strangely, took our software and stiffed us. It never occurred to us that the software was being distributed to foreign governments,” Hamilton tells Insight.

“When they [Canada] followed up their call with a letter saying PROMIS software is used in a number of their departments — 900 locations in the RCMP, to be exact — Nancy and I said ‘Hey, wait a minute.’”

Of course, laughs Hamilton, “when one of our newspapers in the U.S. got hold of that information and printed it, the Canadians retracted and apologized for a mistake. They now said the RCMP never had the software.”

It is important to note that the alleged theft of PROMIS software was well investigated. However, no investigation by any governmental body, including the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which made public its findings in September 1992, the Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc., completed in March 1993, nor the Justice Department’s Review of the Bua Report, which was published in September 1993, confirmed that any agency or entity of Canada had obtained and used an illegal copy of the Hamiltons’ PROMIS software.

A Justice report commissioned by Attorney General Janet Reno concluded the same but did confirm that a system called PROMIS was being used by Canadian agencies but claimed that this system was totally different — it was just a coincidence that the two software programs had the same unusual name and spelling.

So what happened over the course of 10 years to lead the RCMP’s top national-security investigators to probe the matter anew and to do so with such secrecy throughout the United States and Canada? Why would McDade, by all accounts a seasoned and well-respected Mountie, tell whopping tales to so many people, including not only Bill Hamilton but strangers Seymour, Todd and others?

The answers may be found in the pattern of people who were questioned by the Mounties. The information for which they were asked and which they reportedly provided, may reveal that the alleged theft of the breakthrough PROMIS software was not, in fact, the focus of the investigation, but was secondary to how the software has come to be used.

In August 2000, McDade told the Toronto Star’s Valerie Lawton and Allan Thompson, “There are issues that I am not able to talk about and have nothing to do with what you’re probably making inquiries about” which centered on PROMIS. Was the Mountie revealing that his investigation had reached the level he had unguardedly revealed to Seymour and friends?

Surprisingly, McDade did not focus his investigation on interviews with government officials who were involved with the PROMIS software. Rather he focused on people who claimed to have knowledge of the purported theft, many of whom also have been connected to other illegal activities, including drug trafficking and money laundering. And Michael Riconosciuto was at the top of McDade’s list.

With the help of Detective Todd, who had facilitated the Mounties’ meetings with the hope of also obtaining information about the 1997 execution-style double homicide of Neil Abernathy and his 12-year-old son, Brendan, McDade was given access to Riconosciuto and people and information that even few law-enforcement officers in the United States have secured. In fact, the assistance the Mountie received secretly from U.S. authorities was stunning and included access to information from highly confidential FBI internal files and case jackets (including the names of confidential witnesses and wiretapping information), U.S. Bureau of Prisons files, local law-enforcement reports and reportedly even classified U.S. intelligence data.

It was with this kind of help that McDade was able to walk away with what many believe to be key material evidence in the PROMIS software legal case — material evidence of which only Riconosciuto had knowledge. After extensive interviews with Riconosciuto in a federal penitentiary in Florida, McDade in May 2000 made a $1,500 payment on a defaulted storage unit in Vallejo, Calif., that belonged to Riconosciuto. Poring through floor-to-ceiling boxes, McDade hit pay dirt when he found six RL02 magnetic tapes that Riconosciuto said were the PROMIS modification updates — the boot-up system for PROMIS he claimed to have created.

Coupling those storage-unit files with the thousands of pages of documents Seymour had obtained some years earlier from an abandoned trailer Riconosciuto had rented in the desert, McDade walked away with the whole kit and caboodle without so much as a peep out of U.S. law-enforcement or intelligence agencies. At least until now.

Today, that evidence is in the hands of foreign agents — our neighbors up north in Canada. When questioned about the magnetic tapes, the RCMP would neither confirm nor deny that they were in its possession. Michele Gaudet, the RCMP spokesman, did tell Insight that the investigation is ongoing and it is very much about the PROMIS software — software that may or may not involve back-door entrance into the most secret computer systems in the Western world.

Nothing Is Secret (1 of 4)
SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 2010 AT 2:49 AM
This four-part series is about how a foreign law-enforcement agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police RCMP), covertly entered the United States and for nearly eight months conducted a secret investigation about the alleged theft of PROMIS software and the part it may play in suspected security breaches in Canada, the United States and other nations.

In Part 1, Insight tracks the early movements of two RCMP national-security officers — Sean McDade and Randy Buffam — to contacts throughout the United States, including private detective Cheri Seymour, an author and former investigative journalist. Seymour has spent years investigating the alleged theft of PROMIS and illegal activities reportedly associated with it. McDade outlined the nature of his investigation and what is at stake. He described potential security breaches in his country and detailed top-level secret meetings at U.S. national laboratories about similar security problems in the United States. Here, readers also will learn how with the help of a small-town California detective, Sue Todd, the Mounties managed to leave the United States with material evidence that may be crucial to solving a major espionage puzzle.

In Part 2, Insight follows the Mounties to the California desert in search of confirmation of allegations made by Michael Riconosciuto, the boy genius who reportedly modified the stolen PROMIS software for international espionage while working as research director of an alleged Cabazon/Wackenhut Joint Venture on the Cabazon Indian Reservation in Indio, Calif. It also is at Cabazon that other “characters” reportedly involved in the theft of the software were revealed and Riconosciuto’s connections to them confirmed. It is a strange mix of alleged players — the Wackenhut Corp., government officials, mob-related goodfellows and murderers. Insight also will look at claimed arms deals and government research at the Cabazon reservation, including a secret weapons demonstration in Indio attended by many of the same cast reportedly key to the theft of PROMIS.

In Part 3, readers will watch as the Mounties begin a lengthy review of a U.S. government official, Peter Videnieks, the Justice Department employee overseeing the PROMIS contract, who allegedly made the theft of the software possible. The U.S. Customs Service began an investigation of Videnieks based on its suspicion that he committed perjury when he testified at a 1991 trial of Riconosciuto. Based on documents obtained from federal law-enforcement agencies, Insight looks at a U.S. Customs Service investigation of Videnieks, which ultimately was dropped. The Mounties also probed a Customs investigation of reported drug trafficking and technology transfers over the Maine/Canadian border.

In Part 4, Insight will review the numerous investigations conducted by law enforcement, beginning with the Mounties, concerning the alleged theft of the PROMIS software and individuals reportedly associated with that theft. Readers will see how each investigation began with review of the “theft” but quickly led into other suspected illegal activities, including technology transfers. This last part also will review how each new investigation has overlooked key evidence and seen careers threatened.




The Plot Thickens in PROMIS Affair (2 of 4)
SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 2010 AT 5:13 AM
The Plot Thickens in PROMIS Affair
Insight on the News, Feb 5, 2001

In the second of a four-part series, Insight investigates the relationships between a convicted felon, a prominent U.S. security firm, government officials and mobsters.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers Sean McDade and Randy Buffam set out in January 2000 on an eight-month secret investigation in the United States. The two were attempting to determine whether Canada’s law-enforcement and intelligence agencies were using an allegedly pirated software program called PROMIS that had been modified to be monitorable by shadowy interests said to have the electronic key; and, if so, whether Canada’s national security had been compromised because of the suspected electronic backdoors installed in the software.

Much of the Mounties’ investigation focused on the reported activities and relationships of Michael Riconosciuto, a computer wizard who claimed to have modified the PROMIS software for illegal use. A convicted felon, Riconosciuto also claimed knowledge of a compendium of suspicious characters and activities that include:

Arms development for an alleged joint venture between the Cabazon Indians of Indio, Calif., and the Wackenhut Corp.;
A former high-ranking Justice Department attorney named Mike Abbell and his alleged relationship with the Cali drug cartel; and
Riconosciuto’s own activity as an undercover operative in a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sting operation in Lebanon.
Insight has followed the trail of the two RCMP investigators as they moved secretly throughout the United States collecting hard data from a variety of sources and interviewing witnesses, including Riconosciuto. They ultimately returned to Canada to continue their still-secret national-security probe that raises troubling questions about international espionage, crime and scandalous cover-ups said to date back more than a decade.


In this second installment of an exclusive four-part series, Insight focuses on Riconosciuto, on whom the RCMP investigators invested so much time, expense and effort to examine and try to confirm his shocking stories. By following the Mounties, Insight has assembled new information that sheds light on the shadowy world in which Riconosciuto operated and what the RCMP found — including long-sought computer tapes that Riconosciuto has said contain a version of PROMIS that was stolen by high-level U.S. government officials and that he then modified for illegal purposes.

This was not the first time such claims had been made. Before the RCMP got involved, a great deal of this information was provided to Congress (among others) and surfaced during a 1992 taped telephone conversation between Riconosciuto and an FBI agent at a time Riconosciuto was on trial for the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine and was attempting to trade information to the FBI in exchange for entry to the federal Witness Protection Program.

But, as so often with Riconosciuto, the stories he offered to federal agents were not confirmed or just ignored. That is, until the RCMP entered the picture last year and got a break. Helping the Mounties was Cheri Seymour, a Southern California journalist turned private detective. Years before, in January 1992, she had retrieved boxes of documents from Riconosciuto’s hidden desert trailer. The Mounties spent three days copying these documents and, with the help of Seymour, returned to the trailer where yet more documents were retrieved.

These combined Riconosciuto papers revealed the dark and disturbing landscape of crime, espionage and betrayal of which he had been part — one that ever since his arrest and conviction in 1992 had been labeled the fictional embellishments of a convicted felon.

Each new twist and turn of the covert investigation took the Mounties deeper into a forest of bizarre machinations as they sought to validate information which, though it had no direct connection to the alleged theft of the PROMIS software, raised astonishing questions about national security and organized crime. This is not to say the RCMP agents didn’t probe the allegations that Canada’s law-enforcement and intelligence services were operating a stolen version of the software developed years before by Bill and Nancy Hamilton.

The Hamiltons own a company called Inslaw, and it is they who, in the early 1970s, developed a version of PROMIS for the Justice Department. At some point, they have claimed, a proprietary version of their software was stolen and a dispute arose with the government. In March 1991, just before Riconosciuto was arrested on illegal drug charges, he provided a sworn affidavit to Inslaw stating that between 1981 and 1983 he had made modifications to a pirated version of PROMIS. He told Inslaw, and subsequently Congress and federal investigators, that he did so when he was director of research for a joint venture between the Cabazon Indians and the Wackenhut Corp.

At the time, there were fewer than two dozen members of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. John Nichols, who is not an American Indian, was the administrator of the tribe’s business affairs, which included the joint-venture partnership with Wackenhut, one of the top private security agencies in the world, run by former FBI and other intelligence specialists.

The Indian reservation presented unique opportunities for secrecy, according to interviews and documents obtained by Insight. Under broad state and federal exemptions, Indian reservations enjoy status just short of being sovereign nations and are free to govern within the confines of the reservation without outside intervention. Wackenhut was one of the first corporations to take advantage of this special status.

Whether the Cabazon/Wackenhut “joint venture” existed is not in question. What have been dismissed by federal investigators are Riconosciuto’s claims about what went on at the reservation and the people involved.

For example, Riconosciuto has maintained that one of the projects he was involved in dealt with new munitions he and the Cabazon/Wackenhut partnership had created, not to mention a nifty new night-vision device.

RCMP officers McDade and Buffam obtained a copy of a 1991 “Special Operations Report” (SOP) that was written by Gene Gilbert, an investigator for the district attorney’s office in Riverside, Calif. In this report — a copy of which was given to the House Judiciary Committee in 1991 and subsequently to the Justice Department in 1993 — Gilbert describes a weapons demonstration that took place in September 1981 at the Lake Cahuilla Shooting Range in Indio, Calif. Details of who attended this test nearly 20 years ago, Riconosciuto claims, should corroborate his assertions about people he associated with involved in the alleged theft of the PROMIS software and other activities in which the RCMP officers now are probing.
U.S. federal investigators dismissed the report because, they said, the document was a re-creation of 10-year-old events based on recollections Gilbert had cobbled together at the request of federal authorities. The RCMP officers traveled to Riverside in August 2000 to see for themselves.

According to a law-enforcement officer who asked not to be identified, Gilbert not only verified the information in his 1991 SOP report but allowed the Mounties to review all the contemporaneous backup in local police-department files associated with the weapons demonstration and other activities at the reservation.

Insight has obtained some of these crucial 1980s police-intelligence files which Gilbert used for his 1991 SOP report. And these confirm that there was a demonstration in 1981 consisting of tests for a new night-vision device and a firing of special semiautomatic weapons. The records show it was attended by Riconosciuto and 15 others — including two anticommunist Nicaraguan freedom fighters identified as Eden Pastora Gomez (code-named “Commander Zero”) and Jose Curdel (“Commander Alpha”); John Vander-worker, a former CIA employee; Wayne Reeder, a wealthy California developer and investor in the Cabazon Reservation; Peter Zokosky, a board member of Meridian International Logistics who also was a Cabazon investor and former owner of Armtec Defense Products Inc.; and John Philip Nichols, administrator of Cabazon, to name a few.

This is not the only story that emerged as the RCMP investigated Riconosciuto’s revelations. For instance, for years he had said he’d worked for the government, briefing and lecturing military brass and Pentagon officials. In a January 1992 letter obtained by Insight on Wackenhut stationery, the company’s director of corporate relations, Patrick Cannan, writes that “John P. Nichols had first introduced Riconosciuto to Wackenhut (Frye, V.P. of Wackenhut, Indio, Ca., office) on a May 1981 trip to the U.S. Army installation at Dover, N.J., where Nichols, Zokosky, Frye and Riconosciuto met with Dr. Harry Fair and several of his Army associates who were the project engineers on the Railgun Project. Riconosciuto and these Army personnel conducted an extensive and highly technical ‘theoretical’ blackboard exercise on the Railgun and, afterward, Dr. Fair commented that he was extremely impressed with Riconosciuto’s scientific and technical knowledge in this matter.” The letter goes on to state that Dr. Fair considered Riconosciuto a “potential national resource.”

The significance of this is that it is consistent with evidence unearthed by RCMP investigators that Riconosciuto’s claims of technical and scientific expertise and access are not rantings.

The RCMP investigators also discovered another link in a Riconosciuto story that had been dismissed. The permit to hold the arms demonstration in 1981 at Lake Cahuilla was obtained by Meridian Arms, a subsidiary of Meridian International Logistics, owned by Robert Booth Nichols, a self-proclaimed CIA operative and licensed arms dealer (and no relation to Cabazon administrator John Nichols). Riconosciuto for years was a partner with Booth Nichols in the Meridian Arms business and, at the time the permits were approved for the Lake Cahuilla weapons demonstration, Nichols was unaware that he was being investigated by the FBI for suspected mob-related money laundering of drug profits and for stock fraud.

Booth Nichols also served on the board of First Intercontinental Development Corp. (FIDCO), a building/construction company. Among Nichols’ corporate partners at FIDCO in the 1980s were Michael McManus, then an aide to President Reagan; Robert Maheu, former chief executive officer of Howard Hughes Enterprises; and Clint Murchison Jr. of the Murchison empire based in Dallas.

Riconosciuto long has maintained that Booth Nichols and FIDCO were associated with U.S. intelligence agencies and used as a cutout. Again, whereas others summarily had dismissed this claim, the RCMP investigators pursued the lead, poring over documents from the long-abandoned Riconosciuto storage and in the files of U.S. law-enforcement agencies. For example, RCMP obtained FBI wiretap summaries of telephone conversations between Nichols and another of his then-partners in FIDCO, Eugene Giaquinto, who at the same time also was president of MCA Home Entertainment Division. The wiretap summaries read like a who’s who of alleged mob figures with close ties to the motion-picture industry. The Mounties also received substantial related information from classified internal FBI files.

But, based on Insight’s own sources, what the RCMP investigators were after wasn’t just PROMIS but people associated with Riconosciuto and their business ties in a vast array of enterprises that include intelligence activities overseas. Somehow, this network was tied in to what the Mounties were investigating involving security lapses such as those at the Los Alamos National Laboratory last year that McDade and Buffam knew about — and shared with Seymour and others — months before the news hit U.S. newspapers. And it appeared that Riconosciuto and his cronies were in the thick of such international intrigue — especially Booth Nichols.

In response to RCMP requests to help to corroborate Riconosciuto’s claims and connections to Booth Nichols, Seymour provided McDade a January 1992 recording of a telephone conversation between Riconosciuto and an FBI agent. From this tape McDade heard Riconosciuto claim that Booth Nichols was connected to a high-ranking Justice Department official. Riconosciuto also tells the FBI agent that “the bottom line here is Bob [Nichols], Gilberto Rodriguez, Michael Abbell [who's now an attorney in Washington but then was with the Criminal Section of the Justice Department], Harold Okimoto, Jose Londono and Glenn R. Shockley are all in bed together.”

Riconosciuto also details in the tape-recorded phone call specific information about an alleged meeting between Booth Nichols and Abbell. He subsequently provided the FBI agent a handwritten note with additional information about the alleged Abbell meeting: “Bob [Nichols] handed him [Abbell] $50,000 cash to handle an internal-affairs investigation the Department of Justice was having that would lead to extradition of [brothers] Gilberto and Miguel Rodriguez and Jose Londono. Bob said it was necessary to ‘crowbar’ the investigation because they were ‘intelligence’ people.”

What is significant, and of interest to the Mounties, is that Riconosciuto fingered Abbell’s ties to the Cali drug cartel three years before Abbell was indicted in Miami on federal criminal charges that the former official did work on behalf of the Cali cartel and its leaders. (Abbell was convicted of money laundering in July 1998 and sentenced to seven years in prison.)

Interestingly enough, once McDade returned to Canada with tapes of a dozen telephone conversations and his secret investigation began to leak in the Canadian press (albeit briefly), he mailed to Seymour a transcript of the Riconosciuto taped conversation with the FBI agent. Was this a message?
The Mounties clearly were interested in Riconosciuto’s partner of nearly 20 years, Booth Nichols. This connection was strange, according to those interviewed by Insight, because Booth Nichols apparently had nothing to do with PROMIS and everything to do with other more nefarious allegations. And the Mounties also were interested in claims Riconosciuto has made about his participation in a DEA drug-sting operation in Cyprus.

In one of the taped interviews Riconosciuto had with the FBI agent, he says that he was in Lebanon working on “communications protocol” for FIDCO in the Middle East to rebuild the infrastructure of two cities in Lebanon. Why the RCMP would be interested in this additional twist in the intrigue is unknown, but Insight has obtained documents that support the convicted felon’s claims here as well. A June 1983 letter from Michael McManus Jr., the Reagan assistant who also sat on the FIDCO board, to George Pender, president of FIDCO, describes the administration’s support for the rebuilding of Lebanon: “Without question FIDCO seems to have a considerable role to offer, particularly in the massive financial participation being made available to the government of Lebanon.”

There also is a July 1983 letter to the president of Lebanon, Amin Gemayel, from Pender in which FIDCO’s desire to participate in the rebuilding of Lebanon is discussed. What is interesting about this letter is that Pender advises the Lebanese president that he (Pender) “may be reached via telex 652483 RBN Assocs. LSA.” And whose address is that? None other than Booth Nichols. The same Nichols who at the time was a board member of FIDCO and under investigation by the FBI for suspected drug trafficking, money laundering and connections to the mob — and the same man who obtained the permits at the Cahuilla gun range for the weapons demonstration to Nicaraguan Contra leaders and others.

The more the Mounties dug, the weirder the connections got and the more the convicted felon’s stories of the bizarre underground seemed to be borne out. Besides its interest in the RCMP probe and what it was uncovering, Insight also sought — and confirmed — the details of many other Riconosciuto accounts of these intrigues.

Riconosciuto has said he was involved in that DEA drug-sting operation in the Middle East while he was working on communications protocol for FIDCO. What part he played in any alleged sting operation is unknown but, based on what Riconosciuto told the FBI agent in those taped conversations, detailed information about a safe house used by the DEA in Cyprus seems accurate. According to Riconosciuto, the DEA safe house was located in Nicosia, Cyprus, and operated under the code name of Eurame Trading Ltd., which was located on Collumbra Street. “It was an apartment and it had a ham-radio station. It was ICOM,” Riconosciuto said, “a single side-band amateur radio setup. It [the apartment] was on the top floor” There is corroboration for these details.

Lester Coleman, a former contract employee with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who was on loan to the DEA in the late 1980s, wrote a book in 1993 called Trail of the Octopus: From Beirut to Lockerbie, Inside the DIA. Coleman claims there to have worked out of a safe house in Cyprus at the same location Riconosciuto described and under the same name, Eurame Trading Ltd. Coleman also confirmed secret Bekaa Valley drug shipments and the names of the U.S. agents working undercover in Cyprus that Riconosciuto had revealed to the FBI in 1992 — a year before it was outlined in Coleman’s book.

Insight asked Coleman who would know about such a secret U.S. government safe house, let alone a cutout company? “I don’t know” Coleman says, “unless he was there. … I have never met or talked with [Riconosciuto], so I have no idea whether he was there or not. … But what he is describing is accurate. No one would know about the ICOM radio unless they had been there and seen it,” Coleman says.

Again, like Riconosciuto’s comments about Justice Department attorney Abbell and his connections to the Cali drug cartel, Riconosciuto knew detailed information well before the public. And he tried to tell the FBI, among others, but to no avail. The stories then seemed too wild and woolly to be credible.

But they were credible to these RCMP investigators, who spent considerable time, effort and money to prove or disprove what Riconosciuto has been saying. So clearly did this key source for their original inquiry into the alleged theft and misuse of the PROMIS software lead the RCMP afield that one must wonder why. Is it possible that the Canadian investigators focused so much interest on these associates and tales by Riconosciuto to test his credibility about allied espionage matters and PROMIS?

No one is talking about what the RCMP probe ultimately was after or what was taken back to Canada, let alone McDade. However, according to RCMP spokesman Michelle Gaudet, this investigation is “ongoing within the national-security perspective.”



PROMIS Trail Leads to Justice (3 of 4)
SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 2010 AT 6:13 AM
PROMIS Trail Leads to Justice
Insight on the News, Feb 12, 2001

Part III of Insight’s inquiry into a secret investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police into an alleged scheme to use modified U.S. software for high-level espionage.

During an eight-month secret investigation in the United States last year by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), two of its top national-security investigators focused their probe on a former high-ranking Justice Department official alleged to have been involved in the theft of the PROMIS computer program. Subsequent modifications of this software are believed to have yielded secret backdoor access allowing widespread computer espionage.


In this, the third of a four-part exclusive series, Insight continues to follow Mounties Sean McDade and Randy Buffam as they pursue allegations that Canada’s intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have been operating the stolen version of PROMIS and that their most secret computer systems have, as a result, been compromised.

Much of the investigation centered on two men – Michael Riconosciuto and Peter Videnieks. The former is a convicted felon who has claimed that he modified a stolen version of the Inslaw-developed PROMIS. The latter is the man fingered by Riconosciuto as a high-ranking Department of Justice official involved in the theft of the software.

Part II of this series (see “The Plot Thickens in PROMIS Affair” Feb. 5), Insight took an in-depth look at Riconosciuto and allegations he has made involving PROMIS and other national and international intrigue, including development of a new line of guns and night-vision goggles and a joint venture between a little-known band of American Indians called the Cabazons and the Wackenhut Corp., an international security firm. Other trails led to government-sanctioned drug deals and claims that another former Justice lawyer was involved with the Cali drug cartel.

Riconosciuto’s stories had been dismissed by federal investigators, but the RCMP unearthed evidence that gave them credibility. What’s more, Insight confirmed that Riconosciuto had provided just such startlingly detailed information to an FBI agent well before it had become publicly known.

For the Mounties, whose still-secret investigation continues, each layer they peeled back on Riconosciuto’s stories revealed a path to yet more information that might confirm their country’s worst fears: that key government computer systems were using stolen software that had been modified to allow complete access for espionage.

In a 1991 affidavit to William and Nancy Hamilton, the owners of Inslaw who had developed PROMIS, Riconosciuto not only swore that he put the backdoors into a stolen version of the software but also claimed that Videnieks, the Department of Justice official who in the early 1980s oversaw the PROMIS-software contract, participated in the alleged scheme along with a man named Earl W. Brian. Both men, Riconosciuto swore under penalty of perjury, visited him often at the Cabazon/Wackenhut facilities.

As with other Riconosciuto stories, the Mounties looked for confirmation and focused intensely on a U.S. Customs Service internal investigation of Videnieks, a contract specialist who was on loan from Customs. Customs conducted a two-and-a-half-year probe of Videnieks because of suspicion he had committed perjury in 1992 while giving testimony in the trial of Riconosciuto, who had been arrested for drug offenses. In an attempt to enter the federal witness-protection program, Riconosciuto told federal investigators that he was set up on phony charges because of the affidavit he gave the Hamiltons.

Videnieks has denied any knowledge of such schemes, the first time in sworn testimony during the Riconosciuto trial in Tacoma, Wash., in January 1992. Asked if he knew either Riconosciuto or Brian, and if he ever had been to the Wackenhut/Cabazon joint venture or heard of it, Videnieks responded, “No, I don’t…. No, I don’t. … No, I haven’t.” Customs soon thereafter launched a far-reaching internal-affairs investigation of Videnieks.

However, it is allegations of government interference in the Videnieks case and contradictory conclusions about the basic facts in the legal saga surrounding the Hamiltons’ allegations of official wrongdoing that the Mounties seem intent on clearing up. For instance, in a January 1988 decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge George Bason (Inslaw, Inc. v. United States of America and the United States Department of Justice), the jurist concluded that Justice Department and unnamed U.S. government officials “engaged in an outrageous, deceitful, fraudulent game of ’cat and mouse,’ demonstrating contempt for both the law and any principle of fair dealing.” These harsh words came at the end of a long trial in which Inslaw had filed for bankruptcy as a result of not being paid for its PROMIS-related work for Justice. This work was, in essence, to establish a computer-software system that could track the stares of cases in all U.S. attorneys’ offices and federal courts.

Justice appealed Bason’s ruling and, in November 1989, U.S. District Court Judge William Bryant found in favor of Inslaw, stating: “It is not necessary to duplicate the bankruptcy court’s exhaustive findings of fact here. … There is convincing, perhaps compelling, support for the findings set forth by the bankruptcy court … [that] the government acted willfully and fraudulently to obtain property that it was not entitled to under the contract.”

End of dispute, right? Wrong. For the Hamiltons the case has yet to be resolved since they have not been paid.

While the Inslaw case wound its way through the courts, Congress also got into the act in the late 1980s as the House Judiciary Committee launched a far-reaching probe of its own. And in September 1992 it issued a report that forcefully stated that “there appears to be strong evidence, as indicated by the findings in two federal-court proceedings as well as by the committee investigation, that the Department of Justice acted willfully and fraudulently and took, converted and stole Inslaw’s ENHANCED PROMIS by trickery, fraud and deceit.” The reference to “ENHANCED PROMIS” was to a proprietary version the Hamiltons had developed that they alleged later was stolen by the government.

The result of the Judiciary Committee report was that in 1993 Attorney General William Barr appointed Nicholas J. Bua to investigate and prepare a report on the Inslaw matter. The results of this investigation, the Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw Inc., found: “There is no credible evidence to support the allegation that members of DOJ conspired with Earl Brian to obtain or distribute PROMIS software. There is woefully insufficient evidence to support the allegation that DOJ obtained an enhanced version of PROMIS through ‘fraud, trickery, and deceit’ or that DOJ wrongfully distributed PROMIS within or outside of DOJ.”

And still another Justice probe, launched by Attorney General Janet Reno when she took office, concluded in September 1994 that the Bua report was correct — there was nothing to the now-convoluted charges that PROMIS was stolen and sold illegally or that the Hamiltons were due any monies. Moreover, the Reno report concluded that Riconosciuto’s stories were not confirmable and that Videnieks was not involved in the alleged schemes laid out by the convicted felon.

Canada also conducted a probe in the early 1990s and concluded that allegations concerning its use of a stolen version of PROMIS were lies. The Reno report affirmed Canada’s conclusions as well.

So it was with great surprise that Insight learned last year about the secret RCMP investigation. McDade and Buffam were on the trail of PROMIS anew and were reviewing all the machinations that have accompanied this exotic story for more than a decade.

It is unclear what sparked the Mounties’ probe except that it involves Canada’s national security. And of keen interest to the RCMP investigators were Riconosciuto and Videnieks, two men concerning whom the Mounties spent considerable time, money and effort to secure information about their alleged roles in the theft of the PROMIS software. In dozens of interviews with those who came in contact with McDade and Buffam, Insight has pieced together the trail the Mounties blazed in the United States from coast to coast. Clearly, as they told others, they did not believe the official U.S. and Canadian reports and conclusions. And, McDade reportedly told people many officials in both governments had indeed lied, cheated and covered up a significant and dark story.

Insight has learned the two RCMP investigators plumbed the old Customs probe of Videnieks, the former DOJ official who was investigated for possible perjury. And what the Mounties found, according to some of those they interviewed, very well could confirm Riconosciuto’s claim that he knew Videnieks.

For example, months before McDade and Buffam came looking for answers in the United States, they had established a working relationship with John Belton, a Canadian living in Ontario who had become involved with PROMIS as a result of a 1980s securities-fraud scheme in Canada allegedly involving Earl Brian and companies he owned or controlled, such as Hadron Inc., Clinical Sciences Inc., Biotech Capital Corp. (renamed Infotechnology Corp. in 1987); and American Systology Inc. Belton’s securities-fraud claims resulted in a 1986 RCMP investigation and civil litigation that are ongoing today.

Belton, who met in person with the RCMP investigators at least 31 times and talked on the telephone with them dozens more, reportedly steered the Mounties to previously unknown information involving the Customs probe of Videnieks. And this led McDade to Scott Lawrence, the agent in Customs’ Boston office who was in charge of the investigation of Videnieks. What information Lawrence may have passed along to McDade is anyone’s guess, as neither Lawrence nor the Mountie will say. But Insight has confirmed Lawrence and McDade talked. And, based on documents obtained by Insight concerning the Customs probe, the investigation was wide-ranging in its subpoena request.

For example, according to a Nov. 15, 1993, letter to Justice Department Assistant Attorney General John Dwyer from Lawrence’s boss, John T. Kelly, Customs’ acting regional director in Boston: “Concerning the Peter Videnieks investigation, I believe that to properly complete this investigation, the assistance of federal grand juries in a number of locations will be required.” Locations of the requested grand juries included Seattle, the District of Columbia and the Northern District of Illinois. And the purpose of impaneling these grand juries was, according to the Kelly letter, to obtain testimony and documents from about 22 people connected to the Inslaw/ PROMIS affair, as well as the CIA and the Wackenhut Corp. How this tied in to a simple case of suspected perjury by Videnieks is unknown.

A former high-ranking federal law-enforcement official told Insight that “Videnieks was under investigation by an internal-affairs unit at the Customs Service and that the investigation, which included other matters, centered on an allegation that Videnieks committed perjury at the 1992 trial of Michael Riconosciuto.” According to this source, “Customs’ internal affairs ultimately dropped the probe because Videnieks no longer was an employee of the agency.”

This former official, who asked not to be identified, further said that Kelly and Lawrence had tried unsuccessfully to get a Boston-based U.S. attorney on the case but failed. Main Justice got involved because of its then-ongoing probe into Inslaw that Reno ordered. Kelly had hoped that main Justice would authorize the requested grand juries but, ultimately, he was told to seek authority elsewhere; impaneling the three grand juries would not be authorized by Washington. Finally, after many attempts, Customs dropped the case because Videnieks no longer worked for the agency.

To Jimmy Rothstein, a retired New York City policeman who worked with Kelly on the Videnieks matter, that’s not quite what happened. The investigation came to a dead end “right after Lawrence interviewed Alexander Haig,” Rothstein tells Insight. “I was sitting in an Irish pub in Boston with Tim Kelly,” he explains, “and we were waiting for the call from Lawrence. The thing got shut down. Tim Kelly responded by saying, ‘They ain’t gonna screw my guys over.’ Nothing ever came of it, though, and I told them this from the beginning.”

Why Haig, a former secretary of state, White House official and Army general would be interviewed as part of a Customs investigation could not be established. Haig couldn’t be reached for comment.

Videnieks long has denied any involvement with Riconosciuto or Earl Brian, or being involved in any conspiracy or illegal scheme to sell or convert the PROMIS software. In a brief telephone interview with Insight, Videnieks claimed that he couldn’t recall the specifics of the investigation by Customs but warned that Insight “had better get the story right or I’ll have my attorneys up to see you.”

Because Customs agents Lawrence and Kelly have declined Insight’s requests for interviews, it’s difficult to know the ins and outs of their probe, let alone what they found to prove or disprove the allegations of perjury. However, this much is clear: Videnieks’ denials never have been contradicted until now. And, as a result, this key portion of Riconosciuto’s claims that he knew Videnieks has been questioned. But, as Insight reported in Part II of this series, other Riconosciuto stories appear to have been confirmed by the RCMP investigators and by documentary evidence obtained by this magazine.

This may explain why the Mounties spent so much time on the portions of Riconosciuto’s claims involving Videnieks. If they could show the alleged links did exist, that might begin to unravel a string of deception that could lead to the highest levels of the U.S. and Canadian governments. Belton kept copious notes of the conversations he had with the RCMP investigators. In one such note, dated June 8, 2000, Belton wrote that McDade told him “the ‘Drug Tug’ captain Calvin Robinson was the Videnieks driver to the Cabazon — ties to Earl Brian and Michael Riconosciuto.”

This was followed by a June 16, 2000, notation about McDade informing Belton that “they [McDade and Buffam] have determined a second material definitive connection between Peter Videnieks and Michael Riconosciuto…. ‘Drug Tug’ captain Calvin Robinson — Videnieks has always denied an association with Michael Riconosciuto. I confirmed it, I can put Videnieks with Michael Riconosciuto now.”

The reference to the “Drug Tug” concerns the 1988 seizure of a barge hauling 157 tons of hashish and marijuana into San Francisco Bay. The skipper of the boat was Calvin Robinson, a man who long has maintained that he and his company were the victims of a government setup. According to Belton, “Sean told me that he interviewed Calvin Robinson and that Robinson was the driver for Peter Videnieks to the Cabazon Indian Reservation.”

This is about what McDade also told Inslaw’s Bill Hamilton in one of many conversations on which Hamilton took notes. “McDade said that he could prove that Videnieks committed perjury when he testified against Riconosciuto, that he had interviewed the man who drove Videnieks to the reservation,” Hamilton recalls.

Then there’s Harry Martin, a journalist with 32 years of experience, publisher of the weekly Napa Sentinel and a city councilman in that picturesque California township. He recently told Insight that, in the process of doing preliminary work on Riconosciuto years back, “I spoke to Peter Videnieks in either 1990 or 1991 — before Michael had been arrested — and Videnieks admitted that he knew Riconosciuto.” Martin also says that he spoke to Riconosciuto prior to the now-infamous March 1991 affidavit given to Inslaw outlining alleged illegal schemes and before the now-convicted felon was arrested on illegal drug charges.

Martin says he was interested but wanted to check out individuals Riconosciuto had mentioned he’d known to verify the man’s general veracity. “That’s how I got to Videnieks,” Martin says. “I just called the guy up and asked him if he knew Riconosciuto and he said yes, he did. That was before his [Riconosciuto's] arrest.”

If accurate, this places Videnieks on a collision course with what he has testified under oath and in sworn statements to federal investigators about not knowing Riconosciuto. It also indicates the RCMP may have confirmed yet another Riconosciuto story that they spent considerable time tracking. Because Videnieks is a central player in the Hamiltons’ allegations that the DOJ stole their software, whether Videnieks did know Riconosciuto is key to connecting the two men to the Cabazon Indian reservation, where Riconosciuto claims to have modified the software for espionage.

If McDade’s statements to Belton and Hamilton are true and Martin’s recollections of his conversation with Videnieks are correct, it would appear that another fact critical to confirming Riconosciuto’s allegations may have been found. In turn, it could revamp not only the Inslaw case in the courts and in Congress, but it would raise complicated issues in Canada where the RCMP probe continues. When and how the Mounties’ investigation will end is a mystery. But this much is certain: It is having reverberations in security circles around the world.

PROMIS Spins Web of Intrigue (4 of 4)
SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 2010 AT 6:45 AM
PROMIS Spins Web of Intrigue
Insight on the News, Feb 19, 2001

Part IV: What began as a probe of software theft evolves into global investigations involving international espionage, drug trafficking, money laundering and wipe fraud.

The dejected officer shakes his head. “We got further than anyone else ever did on this case,” he says, “and nobody outside of law enforcement will ever know what we found because no one in law enforcement can ever tell anyone what we found.”

The speaker was talking about a case on which he had worked most of last year with Sean McDade and Randy Buffam, officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) who conducted an eight-month secret investigation in the United States in search of the truth about decades-old allegations concerning stolen software called PROMIS and its relation to suspected breaches in Canadian national security.

Insight carefully has tracked the Mounties’ ongoing investigation, codenamed Project Abbreviation, a far-reaching international probe extending well beyond the theft of the breakthrough PROMIS computer software created in the late 1970s by Bill and Nancy Hamilton, owners of the firm Inslaw Inc.

As a former congressional investigator tells Insight, “There is a putrid stench that reaches across party lines [in Washington] and involves cover-ups by governments which have spent millions of dollars pretending to investigate the Inslaw affair only to end up with nothing to show for it. You don’t have to wonder why so many investigations failed; you only have to look at the evidence that shows there is more to the [alleged] theft of PROMIS than meets the eye. And powerful people don’t want it out.”

This also is what the RCMP investigators have told people interviewed by Insight about what the Mounties discovered as their probe quickly expanded from PROMIS to include a cast of characters engaged in or suspected of involvement in high-level espionage, organized crime, illegal-drug shipments, arms smuggling, murder and money laundering. In fact, McDade and Buffam are continuing to look at a case that has thwarted investigations by many others, including two congressional committees, the U.S. Justice Department, a special prosecutor, swarms of federal law-enforcement officers and prosecutors, a special commission in Canada and many journalists.

But until the RCMP probe got under way, investigators were unable to solve the myriad of riddles and conundrums surrounding the Inslaw matter. Many told Insight that as soon as anyone began to turn up answers about these shadowy figures and international intrigues, promising investigations suddenly were shut down on higher authority, witnesses disappeared and careers of experienced cops and seasoned federal prosecutors were ruined.


In the first three installments of this exclusive four-part investigative series, Insight tracked the Mounties and reported what they had said about their inquiries. We learned that the Mounties came to the United States in search of answers to two central questions. First, they wanted to confirm that it was Inslaw’s PROMIS software that Canada’s law-enforcement and intelligence agencies were using and, second, whether the software had been modified with backdoor access to facilitate secret espionage against Canada.

Because of the highly sensitive nature of such concerns, the RCMP investigators were careful not to make official contacts with government agencies in the United States, including those which years before had looked into the PROMIS caper. McDade and Buffam began by centering their investigation on people reportedly involved in the alleged theft of the computer software. Of great interest to the Mounties were the roles played by Peter Videnieks, a former U.S. Customs Service official on loan to the Justice Department in the 1980s who was accused of facilitating the theft of PROMIS, and Michael Riconosciuto, a computer genius convicted and jailed in an exotic drug case who claims to have been hired to put the backdoor in PROMIS for the purpose of international espionage and money laundering.

Although Canada long has denied having Inslaw software, and Videnieks has denied any involvement, the secret investigation by the Mounties was blessed from the highest levels of the RCMP and thousands of man-hours and great sums of money were expended to get to the bottom of what some see as a gravely serious breach of Canadian security. As with all of the other probes, this one started with PROMIS and, having discovered a shadowy network of bizarre criminal operations, branched out to include very serious allegations of wrongdoing beyond PROMIS. Details of these discoveries never were revealed in earlier public reports by Congress and the Justice Department. Yet there is proof positive that those probes delved into such areas and the American public was never told.

What appears to have made the RCMP probe different is that sources approached by the Mounties tipped Insight, leading to a cross-country investigation to determine why the national-security division of the RCMP was operating secretly in the United States and making inquiries about PROMIS and a series of international money-laundering schemes used by intelligence agencies and criminal enterprises.

Consider this item: In September last year, a thick plain manila envelope was sent by the RCMP to a California address. In it was a transcript of a recorded 1992 conversation between Riconosciuto and an FBI agent. Riconosciuto had been arrested but not yet convicted on drug charges and he was offering information to the FBI agent in exchange for admission to the bureau’s Witness Protection Program. The details contained in this transcribed tape recording were explosive.

The envelope had been sent for a specific reason to Cheri Seymour, a former journalist turned private detective whom McDade and Buffam had contacted six months earlier because of her work on stories about illegal-drug operations, gunrunning schemes and money laundering.

In the transcript of this tape-recorded phone call (one of several obtained by the RCMP and Insight), Riconosciuto offers the FBI information about bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas, at Castle Bank and Savings, and the Workers Bank in Colombia (Banco de la Troba Hadores) in which he claims to have “set up virtual dead drops.” Riconosciuto explains that this “is a way to get around reconciliations on ACH’s [automated clearinghouses]” an interbank network for electronic fund transfers.

The transcribed telephone conversation contains references to legal and illegal enterprises and a diverse cast of characters, including Robert Booth Nichols, a self-proclaimed CIA operative, licensed arms dealer and partner with Riconosciuto in a company called Meridian Arms, which was a weapons-development firm. The transcript also refers to Michael Abbell, a former Department of Justice official now serving time in a federal penitentiary for money laundering in connection with the Cali drug cartel.

In detailing these activities, Riconosciuto pulls no punches. In fact, many of the claims he makes to the FBI agent later are confirmed, often years before any had been publicly known, such as the Abbell matter and a DEA sting operation in Lebanon (see “The Plot Thickens in PROMIS Affair,” Feb. 5).

As far as Insight has been able to learn, the FBI never followed up on what Riconosciuto told their agent. One reason may have been that Riconosciuto had told similar stories to others in a desperate attempt to get out of prison but dared not provide corroborating evidence. Another reason may be that, prior to the RCMP probe, people fingered by Riconosciuto flatly denied his allegations or said they never had heard of him. But by tracking the Mounties and obtaining or reviewing originals or copies of much of the data they collected, Insight confirmed that the RCMP investigators found substantial evidence to confirm many of Riconosciuto’s claims. Much of this data had been overlooked by previous investigators, including documents and computer tapes secreted for years in storage and in a house trailer in the middle of Death Valley.

The transcript sent by the Mounties to Seymour takes on special significance because none of the information in it dealt with the alleged theft and modification of the PROMIS software. Or did it? Was the RCMP sending a cryptic message about a change in the focus of the RCMP investigation, or was it signaling Seymour that the PROMIS software was being used in the international banking system for illegal activities? If the latter is true, the Mounties aren’t the first investigators to run into the proposition that PROMIS has been manipulated for other nefarious purposes in addition to international espionage.

Take, for example, the 1992 House Judiciary Committee investigation of the Inslaw affair. John Cohen, one of the lead investigators on the committee, suspected that there was much more involved with the PROMIS case than a contract dispute or alleged software theft. His committee was conducting its hearings when Seymour and Cohen first got together; she was pursuing a story about illegal-drug trafficking and money laundering and wrote to him about her findings and possible links to the panel’s probe. “Cohen” recalls Seymour, “was very much on top of this; he knew what was going on.”

The two investigators explored the idea that PROMIS was being used for illegal activities in the banking system. According to Seymour, Cohen “didn’t mince words. He told me that he had a theory about why PROMIS was taken and that it was because it could be modified to track money laundering — and that it therefore could be modified to control hundreds of accounts and move money invisibly through the international banking system.” Seymour further says that Cohen said “what a lot of people don’t realize is that there are two banking systems. There’s CHIPS and SWIFT, and the phrase ‘Swift Chips’ has been spread throughout this whole investigation without a lot of people realizing what that meant. Swift Chips is a referral to those two clearinghouse systems. They do $2 billion worth of banking transactions per day and, if one was able to move accounts through there [undetected], you could move money invisibly around the world.”

Notwithstanding that its chief investigator had pursued such theories during the panel’s investigation, in the end there was no mention of money laundering in the official report the Judiciary Committee issued on the Inslaw matter. Cohen tells Insight that the committee was “strictly focused on the Hamiltons’ allegations about the theft of their software. Drugs and money laundering certainly were topics, but it wasn’t part of what the committee reported. That type of information was collected as part of the information provided by people interviewed by the committee.” But it was never fully pursued, he says.

“Another area,” Cohen continues, “was this whole MCA element” that Riconosciuto had said was part of the larger PROMIS story. “We were able to support that Robert Booth Nichols had connections with organized crime because he was someone who was identified on a FBI wiretap. That investigation [of MCA] for some reason was shut down. We’re not talking about wackos; we’re talking about assistant U.S. attorneys and FBI agents who felt very strongly that the investigation was shut down because they started looking at the wrong people.”

Cohen is referring to the early 1980s FBI investigation of suspected drug trafficking by Nichols and Eugene Giaquinto, then-president of MCA Home Entertainment and a partner with Nichols in Meridian International Logistics — the parent company of Meridian Arms, in which Riconosciuto also was involved. Wiretaps had been placed by the FBI on selected phones which recorded Nichols, Giaquinto and many others speaking with or about reputed Mafia figures allegedly trying to move in on the movie industry. In transcripts of many of these wiretaps, which Insight has obtained, there are references to the FBI probe and how friends in Washington, including at the Justice Department, would see to it that nothing ultimately would happen. Learning of this no doubt alarmed the FBI and federal prosecutors.

One of these investigators was FBI agent Thomas Gates, the lead investigator on the MCA case. He was brought into the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation because of his knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the 1991 death of freelance journalist Danny Casolaro and information concerning Nichols, et al. Like that of the Mounties, Casolaro’s investigation focused on the theft of PROMIS software and grew to encompass other criminal activities, including drug trafficking and money laundering. One of Casolaro’s sources was Nichols and, according to telephone records from that time, Casolaro spent hundreds of hours speaking with the shadowy figure in the months leading up to the journalist’s death.

At the same time that Casolaro was using Nichols as a source, he also was in contact with FBI agent Gates, whose case ultimately was shut down.

Just days before his death, Casolaro allegedly was warned by Nichols to drop his investigation. Casolaro reportedly had learned of the connection between former Justice official Abbell and Nichols and their alleged links to the Cali drug cartel — information provided by Riconosciuto that, at least as related to Abbell, proved accurate. Days later, Casolaro was found dead in a hotel room in Martinsburg, W. Va., where his arms had been savagely slashed nearly a dozen times. The death was ruled a suicide; the material resulting from his investigation disappeared.

Another investigator who followed parallel paths was U.S. Customs agent Scott Lawrence. He was the lead investigator out of the Boston internal-affairs office looking into allegations that Peter Videnieks had committed perjury when he testified in the 1992 trial of Riconosciuto. Videnieks had been fingered by Riconosciuto as having facilitated the theft of PROMIS and of having visited Riconosciuto often at the Cabazon Indian reservation where Riconosciuto worked on his various technical projects. At the trial, however, Videnieks denied knowing Riconosciuto or having any dealings with anyone associated with him. Others called to testify also denied knowing Riconosciuto.

Despite the denials, Lawrence spent more than two years investigating Videnieks and interviewing many of the same characters who had been questioned by other investigators, including the Judiciary Committee. And, like those before him, Lawrence obtained much of the same information about the connection between Nichols, Abbell and the Cali drug cartel, and reportedly collected information that confirmed other Riconosciuto stories.

Among those Lawrence contacted was Seymour, to whom he confided details of his probe, such as that Nichols would be testifying in Los Angeles in a 1993 lawsuit he had filed against the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for pulling the weapons licenses necessary for his work with Meridian Arms. At this trial Nichols stated under oath that he was a CIA operative and, according to news accounts of the trial, Nichols’ defense was that “he toiled quietly and selflessly for nearly two decades on behalf of the shadowy CIA keepers in more than 30 nations, from Central America to Southeast Asia.”

The Customs agent was so fixed on the claims made by Riconosciuto about Abbell, Nichols, Videnieks and others that he had Seymour give a statement under oath about her knowledge of the convicted felon’s claims. But Lawrence’s investigation came to a sudden end when the Justice Department declined a request to impanel several grand juries in the United States, including one in Seattle, to depose officials from the CIA. Videnieks never was charged with any wrongdoing. Officially, Insight was told, Customs shut down its probe because Videnieks no longer was an employee of the service. And Videnieks tells Insight that he did nothing wrong, but can’t remember much from that time.

Although Insight made repeated attempts to speak with Lawrence and his then-supervisor, John (Tim) Kelly, neither agent would provide details of their investigation. Lawrence did say during a brief telephone conversation that “it’s a good thing that you’re working on this; it’s a good thing to follow.” RCMP investigators must have thought so, too, since they tracked down Lawrence, who now is working in California, and obtained valuable assistance from him, Insight has been told.

Now back in Canada, McDade and Buffam are keeping mum about what they ultimately found. The RCMP has confirmed that Project Abbreviation exists and that it remains ongoing. Officials of the Canadian Parliament, the Canadian solicitor general and even the prime-minister’s office have declined, however, to talk about the RCMP case, including any aspect involving assistance provided to the probe by Great Britain’s domestic-security (MI5) and foreign-intelligence (MI6) services, which Insight has been told provided substantial assistance to McDade and Buffam.

The State Department is supposed to have filed a formal complaint with Canada about the secret treks into the United States by the RCMP investigators, and Insight has confirmed the FBI has launched a national-security investigation. On orders from Washington, special agents of the bureau quietly have been interviewing people contacted by McDade and Buffam and asking what the Mounties were after and what they got, including computer tapes long sought by prior investigators that could establish convincingly that secret copies of PROMIS indeed were bootlegged, modified and sold illegally.

Meanwhile, Riconosciuto remains in prison on what he believes were trumped-up charges to keep him silent about PROMIS and his related activities. Until now his claims have been dismissed as rantings from a lunatic or a pathological liar. But, as the RCMP investigators discovered, major elements of Riconosciuto’s stories appear truthful. And, if so, his other claims and documentary evidence obtained by the RCMP could open a can of worms.

The question now remaining is this: Will the secrets of this strange case ever be made public? Investigators of the House Judiciary and Senate Intelligence committees have begun to ask questions as a result of the Insight series, as have officials at the Justice Department.

And, based on what the RCMP has told Insight’s sources, areas ripe for investigation include, in addition to illegal drugs, arms-smuggling and money-laundering schemes, the role of the Russian Mafia in international banking transactions and links to intelligence agencies, transfers of intellectual property and penetration of Canadian and U.S. corporations. Then there’s the matter of potential backdoors to the classified computer systems at the U.S. nuclear-weapons laboratories where data continues to disappear.

McDade and Buffam stumbled into more than a simple theft of computer software, say senior authorities on Capitol Hill. They uncovered a network involving friend and foe alike that may be using PROMIS and systems like it for a variety of illegal activities worldwide.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:54 pm

Stasi vs. The NSA Back To Back: Who's Worse - A Visual Guide

If you were to compare the evil, reprehensible Stasi to the NSA side by side in a visual comparison, who’s the worse surveillance hawk? The people over at OpenDataCity have put together a nice visual guide with astonishing results. We tend to think of Stasi-scale surveillance as the epitome of evil surveillance, and have completely lost track of what today’s governments are doing to their people.
When you go to this page (in German), you are presented with a nice map that compares the size of the Stasi archives – a large building in Berlin – with the corresponding NSA archives. It’s clear that the NSA’s archives – if used with Stasi technology, for an apples-to-apples comparison – would be quite a bit larger:

Comparison of the Stasi and NSA archives. The Stasi archives were a building in Berlin, the NSA archives seem to be more like a couple of entire blocks.
However, this image isn’t very visually friendly for comparison – we want both buildings centered. Let’s pan to the right a bit to get the entire NSA building – or its comparative, fictive building – and the Stasi building centered in picture:

Hmm, ok. The NSA’s building seems to be more than a couple of entire blocks in Berlin, and it just keeps going. This isn’t easily centered in picture next to the Stasi building.
Perhaps we’ll need to zoom out a bit to get both buildings side by side in order to compare them properly and visually.

Ok, zooming out a level didn’t help too much. The point is starting to get across here…
We obviously need to keep zooming out. The scale of what the NSA is doing compared to the “old, evil Stasi” is slowly starting to come across.

Zoomed out to cover large parts of the German countryside, and it’s still just NSA archives. How big is this thing anyway?
Ok, we give up: let’s just zoom out until we have the full picture. Turns out we have to continue zooming for quite a while until we have the full picture:

…finally. So where the hated Stasi archives were a full building in Berlin, in an apples-to-apples comparison, the NSA archives would cover the Eastern part of Europe, the entire Middle East, and a good chunk of northeastern Africa. That kind of establishes the orders of magnitude we’re dealing with.
I think most people had a hunch that the NSA could be just as bad as the old Stasi, or possibly even slightly worse. This kind of visual apples-to-apples comparison is necessary to establish just how much worse. Humans are terrible at grasping orders of magnitude at an intuitive level.
So where the hated Stasi surveillance was a building in area, the NSA surveillance today is an entire continent.
As a final note, the word Stasi was a contraction of the East German surveillance agency’s full name, Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. It translates to National Security Agency.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:47 pm

I spy on you: no Brazilian is safe from the digital surveillance of the US Government
Image

ECHELON Today: The Evolution of an NSA Black Program
by Tom Burghardt / July 12th, 2013

People are shocked by the scope of secret state spying on their private communications, especially in light of documentary evidence leaked to media outlets by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

While the public is rightly angered by the illegal, unconstitutional nature of NSA programs which seize and store data for retrospective harvesting by intelligence and law enforcement officials, including the content of phone calls, emails, geolocational information, bank records, credit card purchases, travel itineraries, even medical records–in secret, and with little in the way of effective oversight–the historical context of how, and why, this vast spying apparatus came to be is often given short shrift.

Revelations about NSA spying didn’t begin June 5, 2013 however, the day when The Guardian published a top secret FISA Court Order to Verizon, ordering the firm turn over the telephone records on millions of its customers “on an ongoing daily basis.”

Before PRISM there was ECHELON: the top secret surveillance program whose all-encompassing “dictionaries” (high-speed computers powered by complex algorithms) ingest and sort key words and text scooped-up by a global network of satellites, from undersea cables and land-based microwave towers.

Past as Prologue

Confronted by a dizzying array of code-named programs, the casual observer will assume the spymasters running these intrusive operations are all-knowing mandarins with their fingers on the pulse of global events.

Yet, if disastrous US policies from Afghanistan and Iraq to the ongoing capitalist economic meltdown tell us anything, it is that the American superpower, in President Nixon’s immortal words, really is “a pitiful, helpless giant.”

In fact, the same programs used to surveil the population at large have also been turned inward by the National Security State against itself and targets military and political elites who long thought themselves immune from such close attention.

Coupled with Snowden’s disclosures, those of former NSA officer Russell Tice (first reported here and here), revealed that the agency–far in excess of the dirt collected by FBI spymaster J. Edgar Hoover in his “secret and confidential” black files–has compiled dossiers on their alleged controllers, for political leverage and probably for blackmail purposes to boot.

While Tice’s allegations certainly raised eyebrows and posed fundamental questions about who is really in charge of American policy–elected officials or unaccountable securocrats with deep ties to private security corporations–despite being deep-sixed by US media, they confirm previous reporting about the agency.

When investigative journalist Duncan Campbell first blew the lid off NSA’s ECHELON program, his 1988 piece for New Statesman revealed that a whistleblower, Margaret Newsham, a software designer employed by Lockheed at the giant agency listening post at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire, England, stepped forward and told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in closed session, that NSA was using its formidable intercept capabilities “to locate the telephone or other messages of target individuals.”

Campbell’s reporting was followed in 1996 by New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager’s groundbreaking book, Secret Power, the first detailed account of NSA’s global surveillance system. A summary of Hager’s findings can be found in the 1997 piece that appeared in CovertAction Quarterly.

As Campbell was preparing that 1988 article, a report in the Cleveland Plain Dealer alleged that arch-conservative US Senator Strom Thurman was one target of agency phone intercepts, raising fears in political circles that “NSA has restored domestic, electronic, surveillance programmes,” said to have been dialed-back in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

Ironically enough, congressional efforts to mitigate abuses by the intelligence agencies exposed by the Church and Pike Committees in the 1970s, resulted in the 1978 creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. However, as The New York Times reported July 7, that court “in more than a dozen classified rulings . . . has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans,” a “parallel Supreme Court” whose rulings are beyond legal challenge.

In an 88-page report on ECHELON published in 2000 by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Newsham said that when she worked on the development of SILKWORTH at the secret US base, described as “a system for processing information relayed from signals intelligence satellites,” she told Campbell and other reporters, including CBS News’ 60 Minutes, that “she witnessed and overheard” one of Thurman’s intercepted phone calls.

Like Thomas Drake, the senior NSA official prosecuted by the Obama administration under the 1917 Espionage Act, for information he provided The Baltimore Sun over widespread waste, fraud and abuse in the agency’s failed Trailblazer program, Newsham had testified before Congress and filed a lawsuit against Lockheed over charges of sexual harassment, “corruption and mis-spending on other US government ‘black’ projects.”

A year earlier, in a 1999 on the record interview with the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet, Newsham spoke to journalists Bo Elkjaer and Kenan Seeberg, telling them of her “constant fear” that “certain elements” within the US secret state would “try to silence her”; a point not lost on Edward Snowden today.

“As a result,” the newspaper reported, “she sleeps with a loaded pistol under her mattress, and her best friend is Mr. Gunther–a 120-pound German shepherd that was trained to be a guard and attack dog by a good friend in the Nevada State Police.”

“To me,” the whistleblower said, “there are only two issues at stake here: right or wrong. And the longer I worked on the clandestine surveillance projects, the more I could see that they were not only illegal, but also unconstitutional.”

“Even then,” between 1974 and 1984 when she worked on ECHELON, it “was very big and sophisticated.”

“As early as 1979 we could track a specific person and zoom in on his phone conversation while he was communicating,” Newsham averred. “Since our satellites could in 1984 film a postage stamp lying on the ground, it is almost impossible to imagine how all-encompassing the system must be today.”

When queried about “which part of the system is named Echelon,” Newsham told the reporters: “The computer network itself. The software programs are known as SILKWORTH and SIRE, and one of the most important surveillance satellites is named VORTEX. It intercepts things like phone conversations.”

Despite evidence presented in her congressional testimony about these illegal operations, “no substantive investigation took place, and no report was made to Congress,” Campbell later wrote.

“Since then,” the British journalist averred, “investigators have subpoenaed other witnesses and asked them to provide the complete plans and manuals of the ECHELON system and related projects. The plans and blueprints are said to show that targeting of US political figures would not occur by accident, but was designed into the system from the start.” (emphasis added)

This would explain why members of Congress, the federal Judiciary and the Executive Branch itself, as Tice alleges, tread lightly when it comes to crossing NSA. However, as information continues to emerge about these privacy-killing programs it should also be clear that the agency’s prime targets are not “terrorists,” judges or politicians, but the American people themselves.

In fact, as Snowden stated in a powerful message published by WikiLeaks: “In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised–and it should be.”

How did we get here? Is there a direct line from Cold War-era programs which targeted the Soviet Union and their allies, and which now, in the age of capitalist globalization, the epoch of planet-wide theft and plunder, now targets the entire world’s population?

ECHELON and the UKUSA Agreement

Lost in the historical mists surrounding the origins of the Cold War, the close collaboration amongst Britain and the United States as they waged war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, by war’s end had morphed into a permanent intelligence-military alliance which predated the founding of NATO. With the defeat of the Axis powers, a new global division of labor was in the offing led by the undisputed superpower which emerged from the conflagration, the United States.

Self-appointed administrator over Europe’s old colonial holdings across Africa, Asia and the Middle East (the US already viewed Latin America as its private export dumping ground and source for raw materials), the US used its unparalleled position to benefit the giant multinational American firms grown larger and more profitable than ever as a result of wartime economic mobilization managed by the state.

By 1946, the permanent war economy which later came to be known as the Military-Industrial Complex, a semi-command economy directed by corporate executives, based on military, but also on emerging high-tech industries bolstered by taxpayer-based government investments, was already firmly entrenched and formed the political-economic base on which the so-called “American Century” was constructed.

While resource extraction and export market domination remained the primary goal of successive US administrations (best summarized by the slogan, “the business of government is business”), advances in technology in general and telecommunications in particular, meant that the system’s overlords required an intelligence apparatus that was always “on” as it “captured” the flood of electronic signals coursing across the planet.

The secret British and US agencies responsible for cracking German, Japanese and Russian codes during the war found themselves in a quandary. Should they declare victory and go home or train their sights on the new (old) adversary–their former ally, the Soviet Union–but also on home grown and indigenous communist and socialist movements more generally?

In opting for the latter, the UK-US wartime partnership evolved into a broad agreement to share signals and communications intelligence (SIGINT and COMINT), a set-up which persists today.

In 1946, Britain and the United States signed the United Kingdom-United States of America Agreement (UKUSA), a multilateral treaty to share signals intelligence amongst the two nations and Britain’s Commonwealth partners, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Known as the “Five Eyes” agreement, the treaty was such a closely-guarded secret that Australia’s Prime Minister was kept in the dark until 1973!

In 2010, the British National Archives released previously classified Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) files that provide an important historical overview of the agreement. Also in 2010, the National Security Agency followed suit and published formerly classified files from their archives. Accompanying NSA’s release was a 1955 amended version of the treaty.

It’s secretive nature is clearly spelled out: “It will be contrary to this Agreement to reveal its existence to any third party unless otherwise agreed by the two parties.”

In 2005, 2009 and 2013, The National Security Archive published a series of previously classified documents obtained from NSA under the Freedom of Information Act that revealed agency thinking on a range of subjects, from global surveillance to cyberwar.

What we have learned from these sources and reporting by Duncan Campbell and Nicky Hager, are that the five agencies feeding the surveillance behemoth, America’s NSA, Britain’s GCHQ, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Australia’s Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) and New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), are subdivided into first and second tier partners, with the US, as befitting a hyperpower, forming the “1st party” and the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand forming “2nd party” partners.

Under terms of UKUSA, intelligence “products” are defined as “01. Collection of traffic. 02. Acquisition of communications documents and equipment. 03. Traffic analysis. 04. Cryptanalysis. 05. Decryption and translation. 06. Acquisition of information regarding communications organizations, procedures, practices and equipment.”

“Such exchange,” NSA informed us, “will be unrestricted on all work undertaken except when specifically excluded from the agreement at the request of either party and with the agreement of the other.”

“It is the intention of each party,” we’re told, “to limit such exceptions to the absolute minimum and to exercise no restrictions other than those reported and mutually agreed upon.”

This certainly leaves wide latitude for mischief as we learned with the Snowden disclosures.

Amid serious charges that “Five Eyes” were illegally seizing industrial and trade secrets from “3rd party” European partners such as France and Germany, detailed in the European Parliament’s 2001 ECHELON report, it should be clear by now that since its launch in 1968 when satellite communications became a practical reality, ECHELON has evolved into a global surveillance complex under US control.

The Global Surveillance System Today

The echoes of those earlier secret programs reverberate in today’s headlines.

Last month, The Guardian reported that the “collection of traffic” cited in UKUSA has been expanded to GCHQ’s “ability to tap into and store huge volumes of data drawn from fibre-optic cables for up to 30 days so that it can be sifted and analysed. That operation, codenamed Tempora, has been running for some 18 months.”

Then on July 6, The Washington Post disclosed that NSA has tapped directly into those fiber optic cables, as AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein described to Wired Magazine in 2006, and now scoops-up petabyte scale communications flowing through the US internet backbone. The agency was able to accomplish this due to the existence of “an internal corporate cell of American citizens with government clearances.”

“Among their jobs documents show, was ensuring that surveillance requests got fulfilled quickly and confidentially.”

Following up on July 10, the Post published a new PRISM slide from the 41-slide deck provided to the paper by Edward Snowden.

The slide revealed that “two types of collection” now occur. One is the PRISM program that collects information from technology firms such as Google, Apple and Microsoft. The second source is “a separate category labeled ‘Upstream,’ described as accessing ‘communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past’.”

Recently, Der Spiegel, reported that NSA averred the agency “does NOT target its 2nd party partners, nor request that 2nd parties do anything that is inherently illegal for NSA to do.” This is an outright falsehood exposed by former Canadian Communications Security Establishment (CSE) officer Mike Frost.

In a 1997 CovertAction Quarterly exposé, Frost recounted how “CSE operated alone or joined with NSA or GCHQ to: intercept communications in other countries from the confines of Canadian embassies around the world with the knowledge of the ambassador; aid politicians, political parties, or factions in an allied country to gain partisan advantage; spy on its allies; spy on its own citizens; and perform ‘favors’ that helped its allies evade domestic laws against spying.”

“Throughout it all,” Frost insisted, “I was trained and controlled by US intelligence which told us what to do and how to do it.”

Everyone else, Der Spiegel reports, is fair game. “For all other countries, including the group of around 30 nations that are considered to be 3rd party partners, however, this protection does not apply. ‘We can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners,’ the NSA boasts in an internal presentation.”

It should also be clear that targeting isn’t strictly limited to the governments and economic institutions of “3rd party foreign partners,” but extends to the private communications of their citizens. Der Spiegel, citing documents supplied by Snowden, reported that the agency “gathered metadata from some 15 million telephone conversations and 10 million Internet datasets.” The newsmagazine noted that “the Americans are collecting from up to half a billion communications a month in Germany,” describing the surveillance as “a complete structural acquisition of data.”

Despite hypocritical protests by European governments, on the contrary, Snowden disclosed that those “3rd party” partners are joined at the hip with their “Five Eyes” cousins.

In a recent interview with Der Spiegel, Snowden was asked if “German authorities or German politicians [are] involved in the NSA surveillance system?”

“Yes, of course. We’re in bed together with the Germans the same as with most other Western countries. For example, we tip them off when someone we want is flying through their airports (that we for example, have learned from the cell phone of a suspected hacker’s girlfriend in a totally unrelated third country–and they hand them over to us. They don’t ask to justify how we know something, and vice versa, to insulate their political leaders from the backlash of knowing how grievously they’re violating global privacy.”

Disclosing new information on how UKUSA functions today, Snowden told the German newsmagazine: “In some cases, the so-called Five Eye Partners go beyond what NSA itself does. For instance, the UK’s General [sic] Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has a system called TEMPORA.”

“TEMPORA,” the whistleblower averred, “is the signals intelligence community’s first ‘full-take’ Internet buffer that doesn’t care about content type and pays only marginal attention to the Human Rights Act. It snarfs everything, in a rolling buffer to allow retroactive investigation without missing a single bit.”

“Right now,” Snowden said, “the buffer can hold three days of traffic, but that’s being improved. Three days may not sound like much, but remember that that’s not metadata. ‘Full-take’ means it doesn’t miss anything, and ingests the entirety of each circuit’s capacity. If you send a single ICMP packet and it routes through the UK, we get it. If you download something and the CDN (Content Delivery Network) happens to serve from the UK, we get it. If your sick daughter’s medical records get processed at a London call center . . . well, you get the idea.”

We do; and thanks to Edward Snowden we now know that everyone is a target.


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby Elvis » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:38 pm

Given all the contractors working for NSA, this agenda for a "spy conference" seems pertinent here:

ISS World Americas is the world's largest gathering of North and South American Law Enforcement, Intelligence and Homeland Security Analysts as well as Telecom Operators responsible for Lawful Interception, Hi-Tech Electronic Investigations and Network Intelligence Gathering.

ISS World Programs present the methodologies and tools for Law Enforcement, Public Safety and Government Intelligence Communities in the fight against drug trafficking, cyber money laundering, human trafficking, terrorism and other criminal activities conducted over today's Telecommunications networks, the Internet and Social Networks.

Track 1: ISS for Lawful Interception and Criminal Investigations
Track 2: ISS for Big Data Analytics and Social Network Monitoring
Track 3: ISS for Mobile Location, Surveillance and Signal Intercept
Track 4: Encrypted Traffic Monitoring and IT Intrusion Product Training
Track 5: Cyberthreat Information Sharing – Business Opportunities and Cyber Security Initiative Developments
Track 6: Facial Recognition Technology for Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering
Track 7: ISS Product Training and Demonstration

Pre-Conference Training Seminars (Wednesday, 25 September 2013)

ISS World Americas - Conference Agenda at a Glance
September 25-27, 2013

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

2013 Pre-Conference Training Seminars

Seminar #1
8:30-4:30

Online Social Media and Internet Investigations

Presented by Charles Cohen, Cohen Training and Consulting, LLC
Charles Cohen also holds the position of Commander, Special Investigations and Criminal Intelligence, Indiana State Police, USA

8:30-9:30: Session 1 of 6

What Investigators & Analysts Need to Know about Online Social Media.


9:45-10:45: Session 2 of 6

OSINT and Criminal Investigations 


11:00-12:00: Session 3 of 6

Successful Use of Online Social Media in Criminal Investigations


13:00-14:00: Session 4 of 6

Counterintelligence & Liabilities Involving Online Social Media


14:15-15:15: Session 5 of 6

Facebook: Tools, Tricks, & Techniques Investigators Need to Know


15:30-16:30: Session 6 of 6

What Investigators Need to Know about Hiding on the Internet


Seminar #2
8:30-4:30

Understanding ISS Technologies and Products Deployed in Telecommunications Networks and Monitoring Centers for Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analysts
Presented by: Dr. Jerry Lucas, President, TeleStrategies

This one day pre-conference seminar covers the spectrum of ISS Technologies and Products deployed in today's fixed wire, mobile wireless and Internet Service Provider networks and LEA Monitoring and Intelligence Gathering Centers. This all day seminar is ideal for those law enforcement, public safety and intelligence analysts who need an understanding of the ISS technologies to be discussed in the conference sessions and the ISS products displayed at the exhibit hall as well as an understanding of the buzz words and jargon used by telecom operator engineers and their vendors.

08:30-10:45
Session 1 of 3
Understanding Wireline Telecom Infrastructure, Interception and Related ISS Products


11:00-14:00
Session 2 of 3
Understanding Mobile Wireless Infrastructure, Interception and Related ISS Products

14:15-16:30
Session 3 of 3
Understanding the Internet, Interception and Related ISS Products

Seminar#3
8:30-4:30

Introduction to Cell Phone & Mobile Device Investigations
Presented by Charles J. Faulk, Instructor, Geocell, LLC

Charles also heads up CJ Faulk and Associates and is Retired Senior Special Agent, Federal Bureau of ATF
Geocell provides training, consulting, and expert witnessing to law enforcement on the use of cellular telephone data in support of investigations and prosecutions. Geocell provides in-person training around the country regularly and more information may be found at www.geocell.us. Charles Faulk is a contract instructor for Geocell and is a retired Senior Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) with extensive experience in the field. Charles also provides services, including digital forensics, through his company, CJ Faulk and Associates, LLC (www.cjfaulk.com).

8:30-9:30 Session 1 of 6
What is Communications Data & What is Communications Intelligence?

9:45-10:45 Session 2 of 6
How is the Data Used in Investigations & Prosecutions?

11:00-12:00 Session 3 of 6
Legal Issues Regarding Communications Data?

1:00-2:00 Session 4 of 6
Introduction to Physical Forensics for Mobile Devices.

2:15-3:15 Session 5 of 6
Interpretation vs. Analysis of Data: Making the Data "Intelligent".

3:30-4:30 Session 6 of 6
Introduction to Surveillance Capabilities, Courtroom Presentations, &, the Future.

Seminar #4
1:30-2:30
The Dark Side of the Internet - The Hidden TOR and I2P and How they Function
Presented by: Ross Bowerman, Detective Sergeant, Scottish Police College, UK

Seminar #5
2:45-4:30
Smartphone Application Challenges Encountered and Opportunities Presented to Law Enforcement
Presented by: Michael Williamson, Detective Inspector, Force Intelligence Bureau, Crime and Safer Communities, UK
A user overview of Smartphone applications, what they can do, implications, challenges and opportunities for law enforcement in obtaining results and coordinating our response to the overwhelming new apps appearing daily.

Seminar #6
1:00-4:30
Facial Recognition Technology for Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering
This seminar is for law enforcement and intelligence analysts who have to understand facial recognition technology applications which can be offered today and which ones are a work in progress.

1:00-2:00
Facial Recognition Readiness: An Overview of What Criminal Investigators and Intelligence Analysts Need to Know
Thirimachoa Bourlai, Assistant Professor, Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University

2:15-3:15
Panel of Government Executive Currently or Planning to Deploy Facial Recognition Technology Programs
Panel to be Announced

3:30-4:30
"Best Practices" for Deploying Facial Recognition Technology into Existing Law Enforcement and Intelligence Gathering Operations
Panel of Facial Recognition Subject Matter Experts

(Full Pre-Conference Seminar Agenda Appears After Track 7)

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Welcoming Remarks

8:15-8:30 Tatiana Lucas, ISS World Program Director, TeleStrategies
ISS World Keynote Addresses

8:30-9:00 Top Ten Internet Challenges Facing Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community and Who at ISS World America has Solutions

Dr. Jerry Lucas, President, TeleStrategies
ISS World Americas Exhibits

October 11, 2012, 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
October 12, 2012, 9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Track 1: ISS for Lawful Interception

This track is for Telecom Operators and Law Enforcement/Intelligence/Defense Analysts who are responsible for specifying or developing lawful intercept network infrastructure.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

9:00-10:00 Advancing the role of the Monitoring Center
SS8 presenter to be announced

(This Session is only open to LEA and Government Attendees)

11:30-12:00 Today’s interception in an encrypted, social and clouded world
David Vincenzetti, CEO, Hacking Team

1:30-2:00 'Going dark and beyond' - An view on challenges for LI from a non-US perspective
Recent developments in telecommunications have motivated US LEAs to open a discussion about 'LI going dark'. This presentation lists these developments and discusses them from a non-US perspective.
Rudolf Winschuh, Partner Sales Manager, Utimaco LIMS

2:00-2:30 Communication Surveillance in the Fight Against Child Exploitation - Rebalancing the Ethical Debate
AREA presenter to be announced

3:15-3:45 Lawful Intercept Implications on Cloud Services
Joel Margolis, Senior Director of Government Affairs, Subsentio
Glen Myers, CTO, Subsentio
Friday, September 27, 2013

8:30-9:30 Update on CALEA Standards
Dr. Glen Myers, CTO, Subsentio, Chair, ATIS PTSC LAES Subcommittee

10:30-11:30 Where LI Laws and FCC Regulations May be Headed in 2014 and Beyond Panel discussion
Moderator: Glen Myers, CTO, Subsentio
Panelists: C.M. Toke Vandervoort, Vice President and Chief Privacy Officer, XO Communications, Marcus Thomas, former FBI Assistant Director and head of Operational Technology Division, Joel Margolis, Senior Director of Government Affairs, Subsentio

Track 2: ISS for Big Data Analytics and Social Network Monitoring

This track is for Intelligence Analysts and Law Enforcement agents who have to "connect the dots" between people, places and other entities by searching through massive amounts of unstructured data from various sources using visual analytics, semantic technologies, data mining, OSINT and other intelligence gathering tools and techniques
Thursday, September 26, 2013

9:00-9:30 Exploiting the Twitter Firehose for Law Enforcement
Steve Pederson, CEO, BrightPlanet

9:30-10:00 War on Social Media
AGT presenter to be announced

11:30-12:00 Data Discovery – Facilitating investigations and analysis across myriad data sources
SS8 presenter to be announced

(This Session is only open to LEA and Government Attendees)

1:30-2:00 Open source and social media data as a source of intelligence
Jez Nelmes – BAE Detica GCS Social Media Product Manager

2:00-2:30 Commercial Aggregators and the Four V’s of Big Data – When Volume, Variety, Velocity and Veracity Matter
Adam Dietz, Senior Government Consultant, LexisNexis

3:15-3:45 Session A Social Media – The unstructured data challenge
DDN presenter to be announced

3:45-4:15 Session A Identity association and resolution in Social Networks
Guy Alon, Marketing Director, EW & Communication Division, ELTA SIGINT

3:15-5:30 Session B Cross Jurisdictional Data Sharing for Prisons & Correctional Facility Operations: Real World Examples
Christopher Westphal, Chief Executive Officer, Visual Analytics

4:30-5:00 Session A Deep Web Intel Silos, Creating New Intelligence for Law Enforcement
Steve Pederson, CEO, BrightPlanet
Friday, September 27, 2013

8:30-9:30 Best Practices for Scanning the Twitter Firehose
Detective Thomas Calvert, Intelligence Sector, Nassau County Police Department
Steve Pederson, CEO, BrightPlanet

10:30-11:00 Learn to gain key insights from Social Analytics and Big Data.
Topsy presenter to be announced

11:00-11:30 Active, Passive and Hybrid GSM, 3G, LTE & CDMA Monitoring systems. Randomization, A5.3 etc. Practical solutions.
NeoSoft presenter to be announced

12:15-1:15 Session A The Dark Side of the Internet - The Hidden TOR and I2P and How they Function
Ross Bowerman, Detective Sergeant, Scottish Police College, UK

12:15-1:15 Session B Innovated Gang Intelligence Gathering
Lyle Dungy, Detroit Crime Commission
Steve Pederson, CEO, BrightPlanet

Track 3: ISS for Mobile Location, Surveillance and Signal Intercept

This track is for Law Enforcement, Interior Security and the Intelligence Community Authorities who must work with cellular and mobile satellite operators regarding mobile location, surveillance and intercept as well as analysis of mass geo-location data.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

9:00-10:00 IMSI/IMEI Catcher with Public Number Detection. CDMA Catcher
NeoSoft AG presenter to be announced

(This Session is only open to LEA and Government Attendees)

11:30-12:00 Tactical GSM & 3G interception
Elan Sharon, Septier Communication

12:00-12:30 Design of next generaiton wireless equipment. Technology trends that will change the way we work
Tim Phipps, Business Development, Wireless Defence and Security, Cambridge Consultants

1:30-2:30 Global Geolocation and Tracking : how to achieve GPS precision without GPS? A new product demonstration
Jean-Philippe Lelievre, Founder and President, Hear & Know
(This Session is only open to LEA and Government Attendees)

3:15-3:45 InPoint SMS System. Mass Emergency Notification. Target Localization. Vehicle based and Portable solutions
NeoSoft AG presenter to be announced
Friday, September 27, 2013

10:30-11:00 Accurate Cellular Location tracking solutions
Elan Sharon, Septier Communication

11:00-11:30 Active, Passive and Hybrid GSM, 3G LTE & CDMA Monitoring systems. Randomization, A5.3 etc. Practical solutions
NeoSoft AG presenter to be announced

(This Session is only open to LEA and Government Attendees)

12:15-1:15 Smartphone Application Challenges Encountered and Opportunities Presented to Law Enforcement
Michael Williamson, Detective Inspector, Force Intelligence Bureau, Crime and Safer Communities, UK

Track 4: Encrypted Traffic Monitoring and IT Intrusion Product Training

This track is only open to Law Enforcement, Public Safety and Government Intelligence Community Attendees
Thursday, September 26, 2013

9:00-10:00 Using Open-Source tools to conduct governmental investigations against serious crime
Gamma International, presenter to be announced

11:30-12:30 Session A VUPEN Sophisticated Exploits for IT intrusion and Offensive Security
Chaouki Bekrar, CEO & Director of Vulnerability Research, VUPEN

11:30-12:30 Session B Encryption of mass-communicaiton changed the game's rules, learn how to stay ahead of threats with Remote Stealth Surveillance Suite
AGT presenter to be announced

1:30-2:30 Session A Identifying criminal organizations on social networks by intruding communications devices
Marco Valleri - CTO, Alberto Ornaghi – Software Architect, Alberto Pelliccione – Senior Software Developer, Hacking Team

1:30-2:30 Session B Encryption Anywhere and Everywhere. Now What? An Analysis of Possible Workarounds
AREA presenter to be announced

3:15-4:15 FinFisher - Next Generation governmental surveillance. Focus: Mobile phone monitoring
Gamma International, presenter to be announced

Friday, September 27, 2013

8:30-9:30 Practical Demonstration: Encryption of mass-communication changed the game's rules, learn how to stay ahead of threats with Remote Stealth Surveillance Suite
AGT presenter to be announced

10:30-11:30 Intruding communication devices: live demonstration of latest attack techniques
Marco Valleri - CTO, Alberto Ornaghi – Software Architect, Alberto Pelliccione – Senior Software Developer, Hacking Team

Track 5: Cyberthreat Information Sharing - Business Opportunities and Cyber Security Initiative Developments

This track is for telecom operators and ISS Vendors developing products and services to assist private enterprises and government agencies to share cyber threat and attack data in real-time.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

3:15-4:15 Cyberthreat Information Services ­- Telecom Business Opportunities and Implementation Challenges
Moderator: Matthew Lucas, (Ph.D, Computer Science) and VP, TeleStrategies
And invited panelists from US telecom operators

4:30-5:30 Cyberthreat Information Sharing -- Business Opportunities for ISS Vendors
Moderator: Matthew Lucas, (Ph.D, Computer Science) and VP, TeleStrategies
And invited panelists from the ISS vendor community

Track 6: Facial Recognition Technology for Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering

This track is for law enforcement and intelligence analysts who have to understand facial recognition technology applications which can be offered today and which ones are a work in progress.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

1:00-2:00 Facial Recognition Readiness: An Overview of What Criminal Investigators and Intelligence Analysts Need to Know
Thirimachoa Bourlai, Assistant Professor, Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University

2:15-3:15 Panel of Government Executive Currently or Planning to Deploy Facial Recognition Technology Programs
Panel to be Announced

3:30-4:30 “Best Practices” for Deploying Facial Recognition Technology into Existing Law Enforcement and Intelligence Gathering Operations
Panel of Facial Recognition Subject Matter Experts

Track 7: LEA, Intelligence and Defense Analyst Training and Product Demonstration Track

This training is only open to Law Enforcement, Public Safety and Government Intelligence Community Attendees.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

9:00-10:00 Session A Predictive Policing
Carter Craft, Vice President, HMS TECHNOLOGIES

9:00-10:00 Session B IMSI/IMEI Catcher with Public Number Detection. CDMA Catcher
NeoSoft AG presenter to be announced

11:30-12:30 Next Generation Big Data: Integrating Analytics with Intercept
Jerry Miller, Director, Product Management, NARUS

1:30-2:30 Session A Hybrid Storage for Social Media Monitoring-Optimizing flash technology DDN
DDN Presenter to be announced

1:30-2:30 Session B Global Geolocation and Tracking: how to achieve GPS precision without GPS? A new product demonstration
Jean-Philippe Lelievre, Founder and President, Hear & Know

3:15-4:15 Session A Automated Target Surveillance using Detica GCS’ capabilities
Thomas Donslund – BAE Detica GCS Protect Product Director

3:15-5:30 Session B What is possible and not possible with Google's Index
Stephen Arnold, President, ArnoldIT
and Ric Manning, Augmentext/ArnoldIT
Friday, September 27, 2013

8:30-9:30 Session A From Needs to Technology – Use Cases for Social Network Monitoring, Intrusive Surveillance, Network-Based Surveillance, OSINT and Virtual HUMINT
AREA presenter to be announced

9:30-10:30 Session A Known Vulnerabilities of Today's Business Intelligence/Competitive Intelligence Content Processing Systems
Despite the high profile of Big Data and surveillance in the
US, the systems used by intelligence and law enforcement 
professionals have limitations.




Stephen Arnold, President, ArnoldIT
and Ric Manning, Augmentext/ArnoldIT

10:30-11:30 Session A Predictive Policing
Carter Craft, Vice President, HMS TECHNOLOGIES

11:00-11:30 Session B Active, Passive and Hybrid GSM, 3G, LTE & CDMA Monitoring systems. Randomization, A5.3 etc. Practical solutions.
NeoSoft AG presenter to be announced

2013 Pre-Conference Training Seminars

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Seminar #1
8:30-4:30

Online Social Media and Internet Investigations
Presented by Charles Cohen, Cohen Training and Consulting, LLC
Charles Cohen also holds the position of Commander, Special Investigations and Criminal Intelligence, Indiana State Police, USA

8:30-9:30: Session 1 of 6

What Investigators & Analysts Need to Know about Online Social Media.

This session is for criminal investigators and intelligence analysts who need to understand the impact of online social networking on how criminals communicate, train, interact with victims, and facilitate their criminality.

9:45-10:45: Session 2 of 6

OSINT and Criminal Investigations 

Now that the Internet is dominated by Online Social Media, OSINT is a critical component of criminal investigations. This session will demonstrate, through case studies, how OSINT can and should be integrated into traditional criminal investigations.

11:00-12:00: Session 3 of 6

Successful Use of Online Social Media in Criminal Investigations

This session is for investigators who need to understand social network communities along with the tools, tricks, and techniques to prevent, track, and solve crimes.

13:00-14:00: Session 4 of 6

Counterintelligence & Liabilities Involving Online Social Media

Current and future undercover officers must now face a world in which facial recognition and Internet caching make it possible to locate an online image posted years or decades before. There are risks posed for undercover associated with online social media and online social networking Investigations. This session presents guidelines for dealing with these risks.

14:15-15:15: Session 5 of 6

Facebook: Tools, Tricks, & Techniques Investigators Need to Know

While there are over 300 social networking sites on the Internet, Facebook is by far the most populous, with over 800 million profiles. It has roughly the same population as the US and UK combined, making it the third largest country by population. There are over 250 million images and 170 million status updates loaded on Facebook every day. This session will cover topics including Facebook security and account settings, Facebook data retention and interaction with law enforcement, and common fraud schemes involving Facebook.

15:30-16:30: Session 6 of 6

What Investigators Need to Know about Hiding on the Internet

Criminal investigators and analysts need to understand how people conceal their identity on the Internet. Technology may be neutral, but the ability to hide ones identity and location on the Internet can be both a challenge and an opportunity. Various methods of hiding ones identity and location while engaged in activates on the Internet, provides an opportunity for investigators to engage in covert online research while also providing a means for criminals to engage in surreptitious communication in furtherance of nefarious activities. As technologies, such as digital device fingerprinting, emerge as ways to attribute identity this becomes a topic about which every investigator and analyst may become familiar.

Seminar #2

8:30-4:30

Understanding ISS Technologies and Products Deployed in Telecommunications Networks and Monitoring Centers for Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analysts
Presented by: Dr. Jerry Lucas, President, TeleStrategies

This one day pre-conference seminar covers the spectrum of ISS Technologies and Products deployed in today's fixed wire, mobile wireless and Internet Service Provider networks and LEA Monitoring and Intelligence Gathering Centers. This all day seminar is ideal for those law enforcement, public safety and intelligence analysts who need an understanding of the ISS technologies to be discussed in the conference sessions and the ISS products displayed at the exhibit hall as well as an understanding of the buzz words and jargon used by telecom operator engineers and their vendors.

08:30-10:45

Introduction to Telecom Infrastructure, Interception and Related ISS Products


What do LEAs need to know about telecommunications networks infrastructure, basic LI elements (access, delivery and collection function), LEA Monitoring Center Functions and where are ISS products deployed for monitoring and intercept.

Understanding ISS Technologies:

Why Understanding Telecom Infrastructure is Important for Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analysts
Basic Telecom Building Blocks:
Circuit vs. Soft IP Switching, Signaling (SS7, ISDN, DTMF, etc.), Fiber Optics (SDH and SONET), Broadband
Access (DSL, Cable Modems, Wi-Fi etc.), IP Core Technologies (Routing, ATM, MPLS, etc.) and Network
Elements for Intercept.
Telco Back Office Systems:
Billing Systems, Mediation Systems for Capturing Call Detail Records and LEA Intercept Request Processing.
Lawful Interception Architectures:
Probes (active and passive), Optical Layer Intercept at 10, 40 and 100 GBPS, Mediation and Data Retention Architectures, CALEA Pen Register and Trap & Trace, LEA Monitoring Center Functions and ISS Products Deployed in Fixed Wire Network Infrastructure.
Typical DEA Funded LI Systems:
LIMS, T2S2, Warrant Processing, Data Logs, Capacity Requirement (e.g. Targets, Handoff Circuit Capacity, etc.), Central American Project Funding and Enterprise Hardware/Software Requirements
Legal Intercept Options:
What must telecom operators provide with a served Subpoenas, Search Warrant, CALEA-Title III, National Security Letter and FISA Warrant.

11:00-14:00

Understanding Mobile Wireless Infrastructure, Interception and Related ISS Products

Infrastructure basics, back office infrastructure and where are ISS products deployed for monitoring and intercept.

Types of Wireless Network:
Differences among Network Operators, MVNO's, WiFi, WiMAX, Microwave, Satellite, Femtocells and NFC Interfacing.

Mobile Network Infrastructure:
Subsystems (cell sites, sector antennas, back haul, processors at cell tower), MSO special features (HLR, VLR, etc.) and PSTN Interconnect.

Cellular Network Generations:
Infrastructure Difference Among GSM, GPRS, EDGE, HSPA, North American CDMA, W-CDMA and LTE (CSFB vs. IMS Based) and Difference in Data Service Support.

Smartphones:
Functional Differences between 3G/4G Smartphones and 2G Phones, SMS messaging vs. iPhone text messages regarding intercept and 3G vs. LTE data services capabilities.

Cell Phone CDR's:
What records do cellular operators obtain when the phone is on, what's in a CDR when phone call is initiated and other forensic data of value to LEA's.

Cell Phone Tracking Options:
Cellular Operator Tracking Services available to LEA's, Target Pinging, Location Technologies: GPS vs. Network Based vs. RF Spectrum Mapping, GSM Surveillance, A-GSM intercept, WiFi Tracking, IMSI/IMEI Catchers, Spyware and more.

Smartphone Services to Avoid Tracking:
WHATSAPP, TIGER TEXT, WICKR, VIBER, GroupMe and more.

ISS Intercept Product Options:
Electronics Surveillance (audio, video and GPS), Location Based Mediation Products, Smartphone IT Intrusion and Cellular CDR data mining, Geocoded Photo Metadata, EXIF tags, Special Smartphone Services for Geolocation (Creepy, Instragram, Foursquare, VIBE and more).

14:15-16:30

Understanding the Internet, Interception and Related ISS Products

What Investigators Have To Know about IP call Identifying Information, Investigations Involving E-Mail, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Instant Messaging, Chat Rooms and what can be done to address Internet intercept deploying ISS infrastructure and where are ISS products deployed for monitoring and intercept.

IP Basics:
Why Understanding IP Layering Model, TCP/IP and UDP is important for LEA's and the IC Community, IP addresses (IPv4 vs. IPv6), Static vs. Dynamic Addresses and more.

Internet Players:
The managers (ICANN, IANA and IETF), NSPs vs. ISPs vs. CDNs, How the Internet Players exchange IP Traffic, Private vs. Public peering and IXPs.

ISP Infrastructure:
RAS, RADIUS, DHCP and DNS and why these servers are important to understand.

VoIP Options:
Types of VoIP Services, PSTN interconnect, Gateway Based (Vonage), P2P (Skype & VIBER), Softswitches, SIP and IMS.

E-mail Services:
Client Based E-mail vs. Webmail. What's different about E-mail, SMS, Smartphone messaging and Social Network messaging.

Social Network Metadata:
From Tweets, Facebook, E-mail to Smartphones.

Deep Packet Inspection:
What's DPI, Where do telecoms deploy DPI and Where does the Intelligence Community request DPI intercept.

Defeating Encryption:
Encryption Options, Public Key Encryption, TOR, Third Party Services Available (WICKR), Encryption Products and how to defeat encryption (Spyware, Remotely Loaded Programs, IT Intrusion, Man-In-The-Middle Attacks).

ISS Products for Intelligence Gathering:
OSINT, Big Data Analytics, Speaker Recognition, Facial Recognition, IP Mediation Devices and Monitoring Centers.

Seminar #3
8:30-4:30

Introduction to Cell Phone & Mobile Device Investigations
Presented by Charles J. Faulk, Instructor, Geocell, LLC

Charles also heads up CJ Faulk and Associates and is Retired Senior Special Agent, Federal Bureau of ATF
Geocell provides training, consulting, and expert witnessing to law enforcement on the use of cellular telephone data in support of investigations and prosecutions. Geocell provides in-person training around the country regularly and more information may be found at www.geocell.us. Charles Faulk is a contract instructor for Geocell and is a retired Senior Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) with extensive experience in the field. Charles also provides services, including digital forensics, through his company, CJ Faulk and Associates, LLC (www.cjfaulk.com).

Geocell, LLC will present a one day, eight hour, thorough introduction to cell phone and mobile device investigations for law enforcement and appropriate government agency personnel. The course will provide attendees with a detailed overview of what is possible with cellular data, what is available, and how the data is typically used by government officials. The seminar will also discuss legal and practical challenges of making use of the data, as well as, provide attendees with an understanding of the primary surveillance options that are available. In addition to discussing data that is available historically from communications providers, the seminar will also provide an overview of the increasingly-valuable digital forensic value of mobile devices. Final considerations will also be presented that discuss the courtroom presentation of data and the future of the field. More information on Geocell training and expert-witnessing services may be found at www.geocell.us.

8:30-9:30 Session 1 of 6
What is Communications Data & What is Communications Intelligence?

9:45-10:45 Session 2 of 6
How is the Data Used in Investigations & Prosecutions?

11:00-12:00 Session 3 of 6
Legal Issues Regarding Communications Data?

1:00-2:00 Session 4 of 6
Introduction to Physical Forensics for Mobile Devices.

2:15-3:15 Session 5 of 6
Interpretation vs. Analysis of Data: Making the Data "Intelligent".

3:30-4:30 Session 6 of 6
Introduction to Surveillance Capabilities, Courtroom Presentations, &, the Future.

Seminar #4
1:30-2:30

The Dark Side of the Internet - The Hidden TOR and I2P and How they Function
Presented by: Ross Bowerman, Detective Sergeant, Scottish Police College, UK

Seminar #5
2:45-4:30

Smartphone Application Challenges Encountered and Opportunities Presented to Law Enforcement
Presented by: Michael Williamson, Detective Inspector, Force Intelligence Bureau, Crime and Safer Communities, UK

A user overview of Smartphone applications, what they can do, implications, challenges and opportunities for law enforcement in obtaining results and coordinating our response to the overwhelming new apps appearing daily.

Seminar #6
1:00-4:30

Facial Recognition Technology for Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering
This seminar is for law enforcement and intelligence analysts who have to understand facial recognition technology applications which can be offered today and which ones are a work in progress.

1:00-2:00
Facial Recognition Readiness: An Overview of What Criminal Investigators and Intelligence Analysts Need to Know
Thirimachoa Bourlai, Assistant Professor, Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University

2:15-3:15
Panel of Government Executive Currently or Planning to Deploy Facial Recognition Technology Programs
Panel to be Announced

3:30-4:30
"Best Practices" for Deploying Facial Recognition Technology into Existing Law Enforcement and Intelligence Gathering Operations
Panel of Facial Recognition Subject Matter Experts
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:41 am

COLLECT IT ALL

The crux of the NSA story in one phrase: 'collect it all'
The actual story that matters is not hard to see: the NSA is attempting to collect, monitor and store all forms of human communication

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 July 2013 06.40 EDT

The NSA Data Center in Bluffdale, Utah, will soon host supercomputers to store gargantuan quantities of data from emails, phone calls and web searches Photograph: Rick Bowmer/AP
The Washington Post this morning has a long profile of Gen. Keith Alexander, director the NSA, and it highlights the crux - the heart and soul - of the NSA stories, the reason Edward Snowden sacrificed his liberty to come forward, and the obvious focal point for any responsible or half-way serious journalists covering this story. It helpfully includes that crux right in the headline, in a single phrase:


What does "collect it all" mean? Exactly what it says; the Post explains how Alexander took a "collect it all" surveillance approach originally directed at Iraqis in the middle of a war, and thereafter transferred it so that it is now directed at the US domestic population as well as the global one:

"At the time, more than 100 teams of US analysts were scouring Iraq for snippets of electronic data that might lead to the bomb-makers and their hidden factories. But the NSA director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, wanted more than mere snippets. He wanted everything: Every Iraqi text message, phone call and e-mail that could be vacuumed up by the agency's powerful computers.

"'Rather than look for a single needle in the haystack, his approach was, 'Let's collect the whole haystack,' said one former senior US intelligence official who tracked the plan's implementation. 'Collect it all, tag it, store it. . . . And whatever it is you want, you go searching for it. . . . .

"It also encapsulated Alexander's controversial approach to safeguarding Americans from what he sees as a host of imminent threats, from terrorism to devastating cyberattacks.

"In his eight years at the helm of the country's electronic surveillance agency, Alexander, 61, has quietly presided over a revolution in the government's ability to scoop up information in the name of national security. And, as he did in Iraq, Alexander has pushed hard for everything he can get: tools, resources and the legal authority to collect and store vast quantities of raw information on American and foreign communications."

Aside from how obviously menacing and even creepy it is to have a state collect all forms of human communication - to have the explicit policy that literally no electronic communication can ever be free of US collection and monitoring - there's no legal authority for the NSA to do this. Therefore:

[E]ven his defenders say Alexander's aggressiveness has sometimes taken him to the outer edge of his legal authority."


"The outer edge of his legal authority": that's official-Washington-speak for "breaking the law", at least when it comes to talking about powerful DC officials (in Washington, only the powerless are said to have broken the law, which is why so many media figures so freely call Edward Snowden a criminal for having told his fellow citizens about all this, but would never dare use the same language for James Clapper for having lied to Congress about all of this, which is a felony). That the NSA's "collect it all" approach to surveillance has no legal authority is clear:

"One Democrat who confronted Alexander at a congressional hearing last month accused the NSA of crossing a line by collecting the cellphone records of millions of Americans.

'What authorization gave you the grounds for acquiring my cellphone data?' demanded Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), waving his mobile phone at the four-star general."

I know this is not as exciting to some media figures as Snowden's asylum drama or his speculated personality traits. But that the NSA is collecting all forms of electronic communications between Americans as well as people around the world - and, as I've said many times, thereby attempting by definition to destroy any remnants of privacy both in the US and globally - is as serious of a story as it gets, particularly given that it's all being done in secret. Here's another former NSA whistleblower, from the Post article, explaining why that is:

"'He is absolutely obsessed and completely driven to take it all, whenever possible," said Thomas Drake, a former NSA official and whistleblower. The continuation of Alexander's policies, Drake said, would result in the 'complete evisceration of our civil liberties.'"


Numerous NSA documents we've already published demonstrate that the NSA's goal is to collect, monitor and store every telephone and internet communication that takes place inside the US and on the earth. It already collects billions of calls and emails every single day. Still another former NSA whistleblower, the mathematician William Binney, has said that the NSA has "assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about US citizens with other US citizens" and that "estimate only was involving phone calls and emails."

The NSA is constantly seeking to expand its capabilities without limits. They're currently storing so much, and preparing to store so much more, that they have to build a massive, sprawling new facility in Utah just to hold all the communications from inside the US and around the world that they are collecting - communications they then have the physical ability to invade any time they want ("Collect it all, tag it, store it. . . . And whatever it is you want, you go searching for it").

That is the definition of a ubiquitous surveillance state - and it's been built in the dark, without the knowledge of the American people or people around the world, even though it's aimed at them. How anyone could think this should have all remained concealed - that it would have been better had it just been left to fester and grow in the dark - is truly mystifying.

Perhaps the coining of a punchy phrase by the Washington Post to describe all of this - "collect it all" - will help those DC media figures who keep lamenting their own refusal to cover the substance of the NSA stories begin to figure out why they should cover the substance and how they can. The rest of the world is having no trouble focusing on the substance of these revelations - rather than the trivial dramas surrounding the person who enabled us to know of all this - and discussing why those revelations are so disturbing. Perhaps US media figures can now follow that example.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:10 am

Surveillance Blowback
The Making of the U.S. Surveillance State, 1898-2020
By Alfred W. McCoy

Source: TomDispatch.comMonday, July 15, 2013
Alfred W. McCoy's ZSpace Page


The American surveillance state is now an omnipresent reality, but its deep history is little known and its future little grasped. Edward Snowden’s leaked documents reveal that, in a post-9/11 state of war, the National Security Agency (NSA) was able to create a surveillance system that could secretly monitor the private communications of almost every American in the name of fighting foreign terrorists. The technology used is state of the art; the impulse, it turns out, is nothing new. For well over a century, what might be called “surveillance blowback” from America’s wars has ensured the creation of an ever more massive and omnipresent internal security and surveillance apparatus. Its future (though not ours) looks bright indeed.

In 1898, Washington occupied the Philippines and in the years that followed pacified its rebellious people, in part by fashioning the world’s first full-scale “surveillance state” in a colonial land. The illiberal lessons learned there then migrated homeward, providing the basis for constructing America’s earliest internal security and surveillance apparatus during World War I. A half-century later, as protests mounted during the Vietnam War, the FBI, building on the foundations of that old security structure, launched large-scale illegal counterintelligence operations to harass antiwar activists, while President Richard Nixon’s White House created its own surveillance apparatus to target its domestic enemies.

In the aftermath of those wars, however, reformers pushed back against secret surveillance. Republican privacy advocates abolished much of President Woodrow Wilson’s security apparatus during the 1920s, and Democratic liberals in Congress created the FISA courts in the 1970s in an attempt to prevent any recurrence of President Nixon’s illegal domestic wiretapping.

Today, as Washington withdraws troops from the Greater Middle East, a sophisticated intelligence apparatus built for the pacification of Afghanistan and Iraq has come home to help create a twenty-first century surveillance state of unprecedented scope. But the past pattern that once checked the rise of a U.S. surveillance state seems to be breaking down. Despite talk about ending the war on terror one day, President Obama has left the historic pattern of partisan reforms far behind. In what has become a permanent state of “wartime” at home, the Obama administration is building upon the surveillance systems created in the Bush years to maintain U.S. global dominion in peace or war through a strategic, ever-widening edge in information control. The White House shows no sign -- nor does Congress -- of cutting back on construction of a powerful, global Panopticon that can surveil domestic dissidents, track terrorists, manipulate allied nations, monitor rival powers, counter hostile cyber strikes, launch preemptive cyberattacks, and protect domestic communications.

Writing for TomDispatch four years ago during Obama’s first months in office, I suggested that the War on Terror has “proven remarkably effective in building a technological template that could be just a few tweaks away from creating a domestic surveillance state -- with omnipresent cameras, deep data-mining, nano-second biometric identification, and drone aircraft patrolling ‘the homeland.’"

That prediction has become our present reality -- and with stunning speed. Americans now live under the Argus-eyed gaze of a digital surveillance state, while increasing numbers of surveillance drones fill American skies. In addition, the NSA’s net now reaches far beyond our borders, sweeping up the personal messages of many millions of people worldwide and penetrating the confidential official communications of at least 30 allied nations. The past has indeed proven prologue. The future is now.

The Coming of the Information Revolution

The origins of this emerging global surveillance state date back over a century to “America’s first information revolution” for the management of textual, statistical, and analytical data -- a set of innovations whose synergy created the technological capacity for mass surveillance.

Here’s a little litany of “progress” to ponder while on the road to today’s every-email-all-the-time version of surveillance.

Within just a few years, the union of Thomas A. Edison’s quadruplex telegraph with Philo Remington’s commercial typewriter, both inventions of 1874, allowed for the accurate transmission of textual data at the unequalled speed of 40 words per minute across America and around the world.

In the mid-1870s as well, librarian Melvil Dewey developed the “Dewey decimal system” to catalog the Amherst College Library, thereby inventing the “smart number” for the reliable encoding and rapid retrieval of limitless information.

The year after engineer Herman Hollerith patented the punch card (1889), the U.S. Census Bureau adopted his Electrical Tabulating machine to count 62,622,250 Americans within weeks -- a triumph that later led to the founding of International Business Machines, better known by its acronym IBM.

By 1900, all American cities were wired via the Gamewell Corporation’s innovative telegraphic communications, with over 900 municipal police and fire systems sending 41 million messages in a single year.

A Colonial Laboratory for the Surveillance State

On the eve of empire in 1898, however, the U.S. government was still what scholar Stephen Skowronek has termed a “patchwork” state with a near-zero capacity for domestic security. That, of course, left ample room for the surveillance version of modernization, and it came with surprising speed after Washington conquered and colonized the Philippines.

Facing a decade of determined Filipino resistance, the U.S. Army applied all those American information innovations -- rapid telegraphy, photographic files, alpha-numeric coding, and Gamewell police communications -- to the creation of a formidable, three-tier colonial security apparatus including the Manila Police, the Philippines Constabulary, and above all the Army’s Division of Military Information.

In early 1901, Captain Ralph Van Deman, later dubbed “the father of U.S. Military Intelligence,” assumed command of this still embryonic division, the Army’s first field intelligence unit in its 100-year history. With a voracious appetite for raw data, Van Deman’s division compiled phenomenally detailed information on thousands of Filipino leaders, including their physical appearance, personal finances, landed property, political loyalties, and kinship networks.

Starting in 1901, the first U.S. governor-general (and future president) William Howard Taft drafted draconian sedition legislation for the islands and established a 5,000-man strong Philippines Constabulary. In the process, he created a colonial surveillance state that ruled, in part, thanks to the agile control of information, releasing damning data about enemies while suppressing scandals about allies.

When the Associated Press’s Manila bureau chief reported critically on these policies, Taft’s allies dug up dirt on this would-be critic and dished it out to the New York press. On the other hand, the Division of Military Information compiled a scandalous report about the rising Filipino politician Manuel Quezon, alleging a premarital abortion by his future first lady. Quezon, however, served the Constabulary as a spy, so this document remained buried in U.S. files, assuring his unchecked ascent to become the first president of the Philippines in 1935.

American Blueprint

During the U.S. conquest of the Philippines, Mark Twain wrote an imagined history of twentieth-century America. In it, he predicted that a “lust for conquest” had already destroyed “the Great [American] Republic,” because “trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home.” Indeed, just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words, colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime.

After the U.S. entered World War I in 1917 without an intelligence service of any sort, Colonel Van Deman brought his Philippine experience to bear, creating the U.S. Army’s Military Intelligence Division (MID) and so laying the institutional foundations for a future internal security state.

In collaboration with the FBI, he also expanded the MID’s reach through a civilian auxiliary organization, the American Protective League, whose 350,000 citizen-operatives amassed more than a million pages of surveillance reports on German-Americans in just 14 months, arguably the world’s most intensive feat of domestic surveillance ever.

After the Armistice in 1918, Military Intelligence joined the FBI in two years of violent repression of the American left marked by the notorious Luster raids in New York City, J. Edgar Hoover’s “Palmer Raids” in cities across the northeast and the suppression of union strikes from New York City to Seattle.

When President Wilson left office in 1921, incoming Republican privacy advocates condemned his internal security regime as intrusive and abusive, forcing the Army and the FBI to cut their ties to patriotic vigilantes. In 1924, Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone, worrying that “a secret police may become a menace to free government,” announced “the Bureau of Investigation is not concerned with political or other opinions of individuals.” Epitomizing the nation’s retreat from surveillance, Secretary of War Henry Stimson closed the Military Intelligence cipher section in 1929, saying famously, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."

After retiring at the rank of major general that same year, Van Deman and his wife continued from their home in San Diego to coordinate an informal intelligence exchange system, compiling files on 250,000 suspected “subversives.” They also took reports from classified government files and slipped them to citizen anti-communist groups for blacklisting. In the 1950 elections, for instance, Representative Richard Nixon reportedly used Van Deman’s files to circulate “pink sheets” at rallies denouncing California Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, his opponent in a campaign for a Senate seat, launching a victorious Nixon on the path to the presidency.

From retirement, Van Deman, in league with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, also proved crucial at a 1940 closed-door conference that awarded the FBI control over domestic counterintelligence. The Army’s Military Intelligence, and its successors, the CIA and NSA, were restricted to foreign espionage, a division of tasks that would hold, at least in principle, until the post-9/11 years. So armed, during World War II the FBI used warrantless wiretaps, “black bag” break-ins, and surreptitious mail opening to track suspects, while mobilizing more than 300,000 informers to secure defense plants against wartime threats that ultimately proved “negligible.”

The Vietnam Years

In response to the civil rights and anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960s, the FBI deployed its COINTELPRO operation, using what Senator Frank Church’s famous investigative committee later called "unsavory and vicious tactics... including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths."

In assessing COINTELPRO’s 2,370 actions from 1960 to 1974, the Church Committee branded them a "sophisticated vigilante operation" that "would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity." Significantly, even this aggressive Senate investigation did not probe Director Hoover’s notorious “private files” on the peccadilloes of leading politicians that had insulated his Bureau from any oversight for more than 30 years.

After New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh exposed illegal CIA surveillance of American antiwar activists in 1974, Senator Church’s committee and a presidential commission under Nelson Rockefeller investigated the Agency’s “Operation Chaos,” a program to conduct massive illegal surveillance of the antiwar protest movement, discovering a database with 300,000 names. These investigations also exposed the excesses of the FBI’s COINTELPRO, forcing the Bureau to reform.

To prevent future abuses, President Jimmy Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978, creating a special court to approve all national security wiretaps. In a bitter irony, Carter’s supposed reform ended up plunging the judiciary into the secret world of the surveillance managers where, after 9/11, it became a rubberstamp institution for every kind of state intrusion on domestic privacy.

How the Global War on Terror Came Home

As its pacification wars in Afghanistan and Iraq sank into bloody quagmires, Washington brought electronic surveillance, biometric identification, and unmanned aerial vehicles to the battlefields. This trio, which failed to decisively turn the tide in those lands, nonetheless now undergirds a global U.S. surveillance apparatus of unequalled scope and unprecedented power.

After confining the populations of Baghdad and the rebellious Sunni city of Falluja behind blast-wall cordons, the U.S. Army attempted to bring the Iraqi resistance under control in part by collecting, as of 2011, three million Iraqi fingerprints,iris, and retinal scans. These were deposited in a biometric database in West Virginia that American soldiers at checkpoints and elsewhere on distant battlefields could at any moment access by satellite link. Simultaneously, the Joint Special Operations Command under General Stanley McChrystal centralized all electronic and satellite surveillance in the Greater Middle East to identify possible al-Qaeda operatives for assassination by Predator drones or hunter-killer raids by Special Operations commandos from Somalia to Pakistan.

Domestically, post-9/11, the White House tried to create a modern version of the old state-citizen alliance for domestic surveillance. In May 2002, President Bush’s Justice Department launched Operation TIPS with "millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors, ship captains, utility employees, and others" spying on fellow citizens. But there was vocal opposition from members of Congress, civil libertarians, and the media, which soon forced Justice to quietly kill the program.

In a digital iteration of the same effort, retired admiral John Poindexter began to set up an ominously titled Pentagon program called Total Information Awareness to amass a "detailed electronic dossier on millions of Americans." Again the nation recoiled, Congress banned the program, and the admiral was forced to resign.

Defeated in the public arena, the Bush administration retreated into the shadows, where it launched secret FBI and NSA domestic surveillance programs. Here, Congress proved far more amenable and pliable. In 2002, Congress erased the bright line that had long barred the CIA from domestic spying, granting the agency the power to access U.S. financial records and audit electronic communications routed through the country.

Defying the FISA law, in October 2001 President Bush ordered the NSA to commence covert monitoring of private communications through the nation's telephone companies without the requisite warrants. According to the Associated Press, he also “secretly authorized the NSA to plug into the fiber optic cables that enter and leave the United States” carrying the world’s “emails, telephone calls, video chats, websites, bank transactions, and more.” Since his administration had already conveniently decided that “metadata was not constitutionally protected,” the NSA began an open-ended program, Operation Stellar Wind, “to collect bulk telephony and Internet metadata.”

By 2004, the Bush White House was so wedded to Internet metadata collection that top aides barged into Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room to extract a reauthorization signature for the program. They were blocked by Justice Department officials led by Deputy Attorney General James Comey, forcing a two-month suspension until that FISA court, brought into existence in the Carter years, put its first rubber-stamp on this mass surveillance regime.

Armed with expansive FISA court orders allowing the collection of data sets rather than information from specific targets, the FBI’s “Investigative Data Warehouse” acquired more than a billion documents within five years, including intelligence reports, social security files, drivers’ licenses, and private financial information. All of this was accessible to 13,000 analysts making a million queries monthly. In 2006, as the flood of data surging through fiber optic cables strained NSA computers, the Bush administration launched the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity to develop supercomputing searches powerful enough to process this torrent of Internet information.

In 2005, a New York Times investigative report exposed the administration’s illegal surveillance for the first time. A year later, USA Today reported that the NSA was “secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South.” One expert called it "the largest database ever assembled in the world," adding presciently that the Agency's goal was "to create a database of every call ever made."

In August 2007, in response to these revelations, Congress capitulated. It passed a new law, the Protect America Act, which retrospectively legalized this illegal White House-inspired set of programs by requiring greater oversight by the FISA court. This secret tribunal -- acting almost as a “parallel Supreme Court” that rules on fundamental constitutional rights without adversarial proceedings or higher review -- has removed any real restraint on the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Internet metadata and regularly rubberstamps almost 100% of the government’s thousands of surveillance requests. Armed with expanded powers, the National Security Agency promptly launched its PRISM program (recently revealed by Edward Snowden). To feed its hungry search engines, the NSA has compelled nine Internet giants, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, and Skype, to transfer what became billions of emails to its massive data farms.

Obama’s Expanding Surveillance Universe

Instead of curtailing his predecessor’s wartime surveillance, as Republicans did in the 1920s and Democrats in the 1970s, President Obama has overseen the expansion of the NSA’s wartime digital operations into a permanent weapon for the exercise of U.S. global power.

The Obama administration continued a Bush-era NSA program of “bulk email records collection” until 2011 when two senators protested that the agency’s “statements to both Congress and the Court... significantly exaggerated this program’s effectiveness.” Eventually, the administration was forced to curtail this particular operation. Nonetheless, the NSA has continued to collect the personal communications of Americans by the billions under its PRISM and other programs.

In the Obama years as well, the NSA began cooperating with its long-time British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), to tap into the dense cluster of Trans-Atlantic Telecommunication fiber optic cables that transit the United Kingdom. During a visit to a GCHQ facility for high-altitude intercepts at Menwith Hill in June 2008, NSA Director General Keith Alexander asked, “Why can’t we collect all the signals all the time? Sounds like a good summer project for Menwith.”

In the process, GCHQ’s Operation Tempora achieved the “biggest Internet access” of any partner in a “Five Eyes” signals-intercept coalition that, in addition to Great Britain and the U.S., includes Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. When the project went online in 2011, the GCHQ sank probes into 200 Internet cables and was soon collecting 600 million telephone messages daily, which were, in turn, made accessible to 850,000 NSA employees.

The historic alliance between the NSA and GCHQ dates back to the dawn of the Cold War. In deference to it, the NSA has, since 2007, exempted its “2nd party” Five Eyes allies from surveillance under its “Boundless Informant” operation. According to another recently leaked NSA document, however, “we can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners.” This is clearly a reference to close allies like Germany, France, and Italy.

On a busy day in January 2013, for instance, the NSA collected 60 million phone calls and emails from Germany -- some 500 million German messages are reportedly collected annually -- with lesser but still hefty numbers from France, Italy, and non-European allies like Brazil. To gain operational intelligence on such allies, the NSA taps phones at the European Council headquarters in Brussels, bugs the European Union (EU) delegation at the U.N., has planted a “Dropmire” monitor “on the Cryptofax at the EU embassy DC,” and eavesdrops on 38 allied embassies worldwide.

Such secret intelligence about its allies gives Washington an immense diplomatic advantage, says NSA expert James Bamford. “It’s the equivalent of going to a poker game and wanting to know what everyone’s hand is before you place your bet.” And who knows what scurrilous bits of scandal about world leaders American surveillance systems might scoop up to strengthen Washington’s hand in that global poker game called diplomacy.

This sort of digital surveillance was soon supplemented by actual Internet warfare. Between 2006 and 2010, Washington launched the planet’s first cyberwar, with Obama ordering devastating cyberattacks against Iran's nuclear facilities. In 2009, the Pentagon formed the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), with a cybercombat center at Lackland Air Base initially staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees. Over the next two years, by appointing NSA chief Alexander as CYBERCOM’s concurrent commander, it created an enormous concentration of power in the digital shadows. The Pentagon has also declared cyberspace an “operational domain” for both offensive and defensive warfare.

Controlling the Future

By leaking a handful of NSA documents, Edward Snowden has given us a glimpse of future U.S. global policy and the changing architecture of power on this planet. At the broadest level, this digital shift complements Obama’s new defense strategy, announced in 2012, of reducing costs (cutting, for example, infantry troops by 14%), while conserving Washington’s overall power by developing a capacity for “a combined arms campaign across all domains -- land, air, maritime, space, and cyberspace.”

While cutting conventional armaments, Obama is investing billions in constructing a new architecture for global information control. To store and process the billions of messages sucked up by its worldwide surveillance network (totaling 97 billion items for March alone), the NSA is employing 11,000 workers to build a $1.6 billion data center in Bluffdale, Utah, whose storage capacity is measured in “yottabytes,” each the equivalent of a trillion terabytes. That’s almost unimaginable once you realize that just 15 terabytes could store every publication in the Library of Congress.

From its new $1.8 billion headquarters, the third-biggest building in the Washington area, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency deploys 16,000 employees and a $5 billion budget to coordinate a rising torrent of surveillance data from Predators, Reapers, U-2 spy planes, Global Hawks, X-37B space drones, Google Earth, Space Surveillance Telescopes, and orbiting satellites.

To protect those critical orbiting satellites, which transmit most U.S. military communications, the Pentagon is building an aerospace shield of pilotless drones. In the exosphere, the Air Force has since April 2010 been successfully testing the X-37B space drone that can carry missiles to strike rival satellite networks such as the one the Chinese are currently creating.

For more extensive and precise surveillance from space, the Pentagon has been replacing its costly, school-bus-sized spy satellites with a new generation of light, low cost models such as the ATK-A200. Successfully launched in May 2011, this module is orbiting 250 miles above the Earth with remote-controlled, U-2 quality cameras that now provide the “U.S. Central Command an assured ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) capability.”

In the stratosphere, close enough to Earth for audiovisual surveillance, the Pentagon is planning to launch an armada of 99 Global Hawk drones -- each equipped with high-resolution cameras to surveil all terrain within a 100-mile radius, electronic sensors to intercept communications, and efficient engines for continuous 24-hour flight.

Within a decade, the U.S. will likely deploy this aerospace shield, advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, and even vaster, more omnipresent digital surveillance networks that will envelop the Earth in an electronic grid capable of blinding entire armies on the battlefield, atomizing a single suspected terrorist, or monitoring millions of private lives at home and abroad.

Sadly, Mark Twain was right when he warned us just over 100 years ago that America could not have both empire abroad and democracy at home. To paraphrase his prescient words, by “trampling upon the helpless abroad” with unchecked surveillance, Americans have learned, “by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home.”
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 guests