7 ms·

Hrm I wonder what are the chances that someone at the NSA or doing contract work for the NSA has a buddy at a company and that person decides to use their NSA p

Hrm I wonder what are the chances that someone at the NSA or doing contract work for the NSA has a buddy at a company and that person decides to use their NSA powers to get their buddy's competitor's emails from Google Apps and send those emails to their friend. If there are safeguards in place from keeping this from happening how was Snowden able to take so many documents with him when he went to Hong Kong. Ok so maybe he didn't take any of that kind of data, maybe I'm reaching. If this kind of thing did happen would they let the affected company know? Would anyone know?

alrs 13y ago
This kind of work isn't informal. Economic espionage is a big part of what intelligence agencies are doing all day. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.htm
- leoc 13y ago
  One unintended consequence of the Snowden leak is to advertise this service to US businesses. My guess is that the discreet inquiries are already winging their way towards Congressmen.
  - pc86 13y ago
    No. With the exception of the handful of Members on relevant intelligence committees, most Members of Congress were not aware of the massive scope of this program, or even that it existed in its current form. Access to this type of information by a private citizen would require a hell of a lot more access than writing a big check to a Representative can get you.
    - Jgrubb 13y ago
      Color me skeptical, but it doesn't appear that there's anything that's outside the scope of what a big check to a congressperson can get you these days. I do hope you're right, though.
    - leoc 13y ago
      I don't understand your objection. My point was that US businesses are likely to be highly aware of the possibilities of PRISM now, after the Snowden leaks. That most US congressmen weren't aware of PRISM before the Snowden leak is neither here nor there. And while it's certainly possible that they will all simply be told to shoo (and I didn't assert otherwise), a large number of big, clouty US companies (not individuals) hinting that they would like to see some more results from PRISM aggregates to the kind of political pressure that I'm not certain Congress will simply ignore.
- kimlelly 13y ago
  And here's how you can start avoiding the NSA: http://prism-break.org/ http://prism-break.org/
rdl 13y ago
The safeguards for actual analysts who use the data "officially" are probably a lot stronger than for sysadmins (like Snowden) who have access through side channels. They probably log access through the front door of the webapp and would question someone doing queries on blatantly non-work related things -- this has caught people in healthcare looking up the medical records of famous people, in the past. They could probably still get access to a very limited number through some pretext, or with cooperation from other staff (like sysadmins or the reviewers), but it's less of a risk with NSA I think than it is with other agencies.
- samstave 13y ago
  Exactly, except for the logging part: It would appear that either Snowden was able to circumvent the logging policies via his admin privs or they were not in place. When I was head of an IT division within lockheed (non-classified) I could have accessed anything - with admin accounts i was the sole owner of. I was ethically precluded from doing so... At a company where there is "open access" with "logging the shit out of access (e.g. Facebook) -- then this situation could arise where an arbitrary employee could access any data, assuming they had the knowledge of where to find the info they were looking for, didn't get caught and the logging was either faulty, ignored or fictitious -- or the employee used an account other than their own to avoid suspicions. It would be interesting,actually, to understand to what deep level of privs B.A.H - as a company - was afforded to NSA data/systems/programs/etc... One thing I am not clear on is how this employee of a 3rd party def contractor (albeit, supposedly the biggest to the NSA) was able to access information that is considered to be so deeply secret to the USG? Is this an indication that a significantly "important" program (PRISM) was, for the most part, outsourced to be run by contractors such as Snowden within BAH? Did Snowden systematically seek out, deftly, access to information over a long period of time through his privs afforded him as a sys ad? This to me is the most intriguing and unknown part: For how long was Snowden planning this? Was this something he truly accomplished on his own? Or was there a cast of supporting characters that we are unaware of" If there is no supporting characters who helped him put this together - that this guy is one of the most brilliant high-school drop-outs I have heard of. If there is a cast of supporting characters were they operating as whistleblowers in support of the seemingly patriotic reveal that we have thus far seen? Or was there a supporting cast of characters that have helped snowden architect this whole event, masterfully - it seems, for a motive that we, the outsiders, are not yet aware: There seem to be three possible realities if this is true: 1) Snowden plus team is a smokescreen designed to purposefully air this info to further the surveillance agenda by seeing how far the world acquiesces to it. Stir up a reaction that can result in tighter controls of liberty when protesting pops up and the USG can claim that these are all threats to our national security and these efforts are vital. 2) Snowden plus team are truly patriots and heroes and are looking to stop the furtherance of USG/tyranny over individual freedom and are airing this info to allow for an open dialogue. 3) Snowden and team really are double/triple agents and are an attack on the USG directly attempting to make the USG look bad and have the US lose face/credibility... (I am sure there are countless other potential scenarios that the NSA/USG have mapped out... I would be REALLY interested in hearing them for consideration) --- My personal opinion is simple - I am very happy this series of events has taken place as I have known of Echelon for decades - and now feel that there is 100% irrefutable proof that it is in place... what the next steps are is unclear, but I hope that it is an awakening and invigoration of people all over the world to fight to make this place a better world to live in rather than a worse one.
rasterizer 13y ago
According to Google "NSA powers" in their case are restricted to FISA orders, so I'm not sure how a random worker at a government contractor can produce these. Snowden was a sysadmin for a contractor and that is how he got his hands on their internal documents. Is no one else paying attention to anything beyond the "slides" in this story?!
- bigiain 13y ago
  Aren't the NSA claiming they only need a FISA warrant if both ends of the correspondence are (reasonably believed to be) US citizens on US territory? For those of us in "the rest of the world" or any Americans corresponding with us I believe the restrictions on the NSA are "Yeah, do whatever the hell you want!"
  - dangrossman 13y ago
    FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, only creates warrants for surveilling foreign persons. It also requires that the surveillance actively minimize data collected on US persons in the process.
    - jviddy 13y ago
      It that it covers foreign persons who are believed to be outside of the US
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The NSA is claiming that FISA warrants are required if either end is a foreigner, and that if the connection is US-US that they're not allowed to examine that conversation at all.
uvdiv 13y ago
Snowden directly answers this -- he claims NSA analysts can get away with it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower#block-51bf2ac1e4b05a46aeeb319b http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n... and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower#block-51bf317be4b0d3c14258337b http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n... This is getting overlooked, but a 2009 NYT article claimed an NSA analyst looked through Bill Clinton's email out of curiosity (he was caught). I think this is very revealing. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?pagewanted=a...
- Spooky23 13y ago
  Many government and private sector systems share these types of problems. Think Facebook and the DMV. As controls mature around the process, trolling through the data becomes relatively easy to enforce. My understanding is that in most state DMVs, looking up the driving record of a public figure or similarly flagged individual by some clerk is immediately detected, and "curiosity" lookups on friends and family eventually get caught by audit.
  - alrs 13y ago
    There is no problem. This spying is being done for economic advantage, not to "protect us." This information is being passed on to American corporations. This is very old news. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.htm

alrs 13y ago

This kind of work isn't informal. Economic espionage is a big part of what intelligence agencies are doing all day. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.htm

leoc 13y ago
One unintended consequence of the Snowden leak is to advertise this service to US businesses. My guess is that the discreet inquiries are already winging their way towards Congressmen.
- pc86 13y ago
  No. With the exception of the handful of Members on relevant intelligence committees, most Members of Congress were not aware of the massive scope of this program, or even that it existed in its current form. Access to this type of information by a private citizen would require a hell of a lot more access than writing a big check to a Representative can get you.
  - Jgrubb 13y ago
    Color me skeptical, but it doesn't appear that there's anything that's outside the scope of what a big check to a congressperson can get you these days. I do hope you're right, though.
  - leoc 13y ago
    I don't understand your objection. My point was that US businesses are likely to be highly aware of the possibilities of PRISM now, after the Snowden leaks. That most US congressmen weren't aware of PRISM before the Snowden leak is neither here nor there. And while it's certainly possible that they will all simply be told to shoo (and I didn't assert otherwise), a large number of big, clouty US companies (not individuals) hinting that they would like to see some more results from PRISM aggregates to the kind of political pressure that I'm not certain Congress will simply ignore.
kimlelly 13y ago
And here's how you can start avoiding the NSA: http://prism-break.org/ http://prism-break.org/

rdl 13y ago

The safeguards for actual analysts who use the data "officially" are probably a lot stronger than for sysadmins (like Snowden) who have access through side channels. They probably log access through the front door of the webapp and would question someone doing queries on blatantly non-work related things -- this has caught people in healthcare looking up the medical records of famous people, in the past. They could probably still get access to a very limited number through some pretext, or with cooperation from other staff (like sysadmins or the reviewers), but it's less of a risk with NSA I think than it is with other agencies.

samstave 13y ago
Exactly, except for the logging part: It would appear that either Snowden was able to circumvent the logging policies via his admin privs or they were not in place. When I was head of an IT division within lockheed (non-classified) I could have accessed anything - with admin accounts i was the sole owner of. I was ethically precluded from doing so... At a company where there is "open access" with "logging the shit out of access (e.g. Facebook) -- then this situation could arise where an arbitrary employee could access any data, assuming they had the knowledge of where to find the info they were looking for, didn't get caught and the logging was either faulty, ignored or fictitious -- or the employee used an account other than their own to avoid suspicions. It would be interesting,actually, to understand to what deep level of privs B.A.H - as a company - was afforded to NSA data/systems/programs/etc... One thing I am not clear on is how this employee of a 3rd party def contractor (albeit, supposedly the biggest to the NSA) was able to access information that is considered to be so deeply secret to the USG? Is this an indication that a significantly "important" program (PRISM) was, for the most part, outsourced to be run by contractors such as Snowden within BAH? Did Snowden systematically seek out, deftly, access to information over a long period of time through his privs afforded him as a sys ad? This to me is the most intriguing and unknown part: For how long was Snowden planning this? Was this something he truly accomplished on his own? Or was there a cast of supporting characters that we are unaware of" If there is no supporting characters who helped him put this together - that this guy is one of the most brilliant high-school drop-outs I have heard of. If there is a cast of supporting characters were they operating as whistleblowers in support of the seemingly patriotic reveal that we have thus far seen? Or was there a supporting cast of characters that have helped snowden architect this whole event, masterfully - it seems, for a motive that we, the outsiders, are not yet aware: There seem to be three possible realities if this is true: 1) Snowden plus team is a smokescreen designed to purposefully air this info to further the surveillance agenda by seeing how far the world acquiesces to it. Stir up a reaction that can result in tighter controls of liberty when protesting pops up and the USG can claim that these are all threats to our national security and these efforts are vital. 2) Snowden plus team are truly patriots and heroes and are looking to stop the furtherance of USG/tyranny over individual freedom and are airing this info to allow for an open dialogue. 3) Snowden and team really are double/triple agents and are an attack on the USG directly attempting to make the USG look bad and have the US lose face/credibility... (I am sure there are countless other potential scenarios that the NSA/USG have mapped out... I would be REALLY interested in hearing them for consideration) --- My personal opinion is simple - I am very happy this series of events has taken place as I have known of Echelon for decades - and now feel that there is 100% irrefutable proof that it is in place... what the next steps are is unclear, but I hope that it is an awakening and invigoration of people all over the world to fight to make this place a better world to live in rather than a worse one.

rasterizer 13y ago

According to Google "NSA powers" in their case are restricted to FISA orders, so I'm not sure how a random worker at a government contractor can produce these. Snowden was a sysadmin for a contractor and that is how he got his hands on their internal documents. Is no one else paying attention to anything beyond the "slides" in this story?!

bigiain 13y ago
Aren't the NSA claiming they only need a FISA warrant if both ends of the correspondence are (reasonably believed to be) US citizens on US territory? For those of us in "the rest of the world" or any Americans corresponding with us I believe the restrictions on the NSA are "Yeah, do whatever the hell you want!"
- dangrossman 13y ago
  FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, only creates warrants for surveilling foreign persons. It also requires that the surveillance actively minimize data collected on US persons in the process.
  - jviddy 13y ago
    It that it covers foreign persons who are believed to be outside of the US
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mpyne 13y ago
  The NSA is claiming that FISA warrants are required if either end is a foreigner, and that if the connection is US-US that they're not allowed to examine that conversation at all.

uvdiv 13y ago

Snowden directly answers this -- he claims NSA analysts can get away with it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower#block-51bf2ac1e4b05a46aeeb319b http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n... and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower#block-51bf317be4b0d3c14258337b http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n... This is getting overlooked, but a 2009 NYT article claimed an NSA analyst looked through Bill Clinton's email out of curiosity (he was caught). I think this is very revealing. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?pagewanted=a...

Spooky23 13y ago
Many government and private sector systems share these types of problems. Think Facebook and the DMV. As controls mature around the process, trolling through the data becomes relatively easy to enforce. My understanding is that in most state DMVs, looking up the driving record of a public figure or similarly flagged individual by some clerk is immediately detected, and "curiosity" lookups on friends and family eventually get caught by audit.
- alrs 13y ago
  There is no problem. This spying is being done for economic advantage, not to "protect us." This information is being passed on to American corporations. This is very old news. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.htm