3 ms·

"The FBI uses government equipment on private company property to retrieve matching information from a participating company, such as Microsoft or Yahoo and pas

by md224 13y ago

"The FBI uses government equipment on private company property to retrieve matching information from a participating company, such as Microsoft or Yahoo and pass it without further review to the NSA." (emphasis mine) Is it just me or is this a fairly bold claim? I don't see anything about government equipment on private company property in the slides... wondering if this is additional testimony from Snowden, or info from supplementary docs that they haven't released. Also: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court does not review any individual collection request." Could I get some perspective on this statement? Is this as bad as it sounds? Or are they saying the court approves monitoring on an individual and doesn't need to give approval for every single collection request on that individual?

LoganCale 13y ago
I don't know if this is connected to the new information, but I seemed to remember articles about the FBI trying to set up backdoors and do something like extending the use of CALEA-type hardware to web companies. I don't know whatever became of it, but older articles on the subject can still be found. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wir...
mpyne 13y ago
> I don't see anything about government equipment on private company property in the slides. Given the interface already laid out in what we knew about PRISM before, that's mostly an implementation detail. Maybe the company didn't want to have to send the data over the open Internet on their own (even encrypted) and wanted to pawn off that responsibility to the NSA? I don't know where the info came from but I remember it being talked about when the news first leaked so it may have been sent by Snowden with the initial leak of slides. I suppose the question is really how embedded into the company's subnet is the government equipment? > The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court does not review any individual collection request Basically this part from the article introduction: "The program is court-approved but does not require individual warrants. Instead, it operates under a broader authorization from federal judges who oversee the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)". Keep in mind this is where the US/non-US inequality is at its most severe. Almost the only reason the FISC really cares about this at all is to prevent monitoring of American citizens in a way that violates the 4th Amendment. The program as constituted is less worried about ensuring the right person has their data collected as it is about ensuring that a U.S. citizen does not have their data collected. So from that perspective such a warrant might appear rational on the part of the court. That's admittedly a pretty large inequity between US and non-US persons but that's how the existing case law seems to approach it.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  > I don't know where the info came from but I remember it being talked about when the news first leaked so it may have been sent by Snowden with the initial leak of slides. I first saw this in followup articles from the NYT and Washington Post quoting unnamed government sources.
- windexh8er 13y ago
  It's not just the companies listed here. It's the ISPs that provide the treasure trove. The closer you can get to the subscriber wherein they must pass only a handful of egress to upstream connectivity the better. I've personally seen one of the NSAs mobile enclosures of which we were feeding data via the Cisco law enforcement images. The provider I was working for at the time had about 250k subscribers and was 49% owned by Comcast. The enclosure the NSA gear was in was fully locked and encompasses in tamper tape on any panel you could potentially remove. The ironic thing, however, was it was sitting right at the front of the main data center door. Ballsy. I can't wait until the documents come out showcasing the ties into carriers. I've been waiting years for that validation.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    I was always wondering why the carriers enjoy such privileged monopoly positions (with it's price, service quality consequences). Deep cooperation with the NSA is a pretty logical reason. In retrospect, the retroactive immunity thing should have been a hint...
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Have you contacted a journalist about your experiences? If not now is a good time to do so if you really have first-hand knowledge of tapping within ISPs.
WestCoastJustin 13y ago
In a report leaked 2 days ago [1], there is something on page 44 last paragraph that supports the FBI does the collection. If this is done via their machines on private property, this report doesn't speak to that. In January 2009, the FBI, at NSA's request, assumed responsibility for the Domestic Content Order and became the declarant before the FISC. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5952830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5952830
rsingel 13y ago
Per the equipment: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap?... And yes, the NSA tells the FISA court it wants a court order to spy on Al Qaeda in Pakistan or Chinese spies. Each one of those is a "court order". If it sounds like a general warrant, well, that's because that's what it is.

by md224 13y ago

LoganCale 13y ago

I don't know if this is connected to the new information, but I seemed to remember articles about the FBI trying to set up backdoors and do something like extending the use of CALEA-type hardware to web companies. I don't know whatever became of it, but older articles on the subject can still be found. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wir...

mpyne 13y ago

> I don't see anything about government equipment on private company property in the slides. Given the interface already laid out in what we knew about PRISM before, that's mostly an implementation detail. Maybe the company didn't want to have to send the data over the open Internet on their own (even encrypted) and wanted to pawn off that responsibility to the NSA? I don't know where the info came from but I remember it being talked about when the news first leaked so it may have been sent by Snowden with the initial leak of slides. I suppose the question is really how embedded into the company's subnet is the government equipment? > The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court does not review any individual collection request Basically this part from the article introduction: "The program is court-approved but does not require individual warrants. Instead, it operates under a broader authorization from federal judges who oversee the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)". Keep in mind this is where the US/non-US inequality is at its most severe. Almost the only reason the FISC really cares about this at all is to prevent monitoring of American citizens in a way that violates the 4th Amendment. The program as constituted is less worried about ensuring the right person has their data collected as it is about ensuring that a U.S. citizen does not have their data collected. So from that perspective such a warrant might appear rational on the part of the court. That's admittedly a pretty large inequity between US and non-US persons but that's how the existing case law seems to approach it.

LoganCale 13y ago
> I don't know where the info came from but I remember it being talked about when the news first leaked so it may have been sent by Snowden with the initial leak of slides. I first saw this in followup articles from the NYT and Washington Post quoting unnamed government sources.
windexh8er 13y ago
It's not just the companies listed here. It's the ISPs that provide the treasure trove. The closer you can get to the subscriber wherein they must pass only a handful of egress to upstream connectivity the better. I've personally seen one of the NSAs mobile enclosures of which we were feeding data via the Cisco law enforcement images. The provider I was working for at the time had about 250k subscribers and was 49% owned by Comcast. The enclosure the NSA gear was in was fully locked and encompasses in tamper tape on any panel you could potentially remove. The ironic thing, however, was it was sitting right at the front of the main data center door. Ballsy. I can't wait until the documents come out showcasing the ties into carriers. I've been waiting years for that validation.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  I was always wondering why the carriers enjoy such privileged monopoly positions (with it's price, service quality consequences). Deep cooperation with the NSA is a pretty logical reason. In retrospect, the retroactive immunity thing should have been a hint...
- grey-area 13y ago
  Have you contacted a journalist about your experiences? If not now is a good time to do so if you really have first-hand knowledge of tapping within ISPs.

WestCoastJustin 13y ago

In a report leaked 2 days ago [1], there is something on page 44 last paragraph that supports the FBI does the collection. If this is done via their machines on private property, this report doesn't speak to that. In January 2009, the FBI, at NSA's request, assumed responsibility for the Domestic Content Order and became the declarant before the FISC. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5952830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5952830

rsingel 13y ago

Per the equipment: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap?... And yes, the NSA tells the FISA court it wants a court order to spy on Al Qaeda in Pakistan or Chinese spies. Each one of those is a "court order". If it sounds like a general warrant, well, that's because that's what it is.