National Security Mission Creeps: Forget Terrorists, Feds Want Hackers
Congresswoman Jane Harman has been pushing a higher wall on FISA than most of her Democratic colleagues because she doesn't trust the administration's line on why it wants to wiretap without warrant massive numbers of Americans. She got duped by the administration (and admits it) on its intelligence before the Iraq War and thinks now that we should have very, very high standards before giving the administration powers that no presidential administration has had before.
Now, Shane Harris of National Journal has a huge story on the interaction between telecom firm Qwest and the National Security Agency in which the alleged reasons for the government wanting access to massive call records was not to chase down terrorists but to look for individual and foreign government computer network hackers.
Harris' intro to his piece, "NSA Sought Data Before 9/11":
Beginning in February 2001, almost seven months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government's top electronic eavesdropping organization, the National Security Agency, asked a major U.S. telecommunications carrier for information about its customers and the flow of electronic traffic across its network, according to sources familiar with the request. The carrier, Qwest Communications, refused, believing that the request was illegal unless accompanied by a court order.After terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, the NSA again asked Qwest, as well as other telecom companies, for similar information to help the agency track suspects with the aim of preventing future attacks, current and former officials have said. The companies responded in various ways, with Qwest being the most reluctant to cooperate. However, in February 2001, the NSA's primary purpose in seeking access to Qwest's network apparently was not to search for terrorists but to watch for computer hackers and foreign-government forces trying to penetrate and compromise U.S. government information systems, particularly within the Defense Department, sources said. Government officials have long feared a "digital Pearl Harbor" if intruders were to seize control of these systems or other key U.S. infrastructures through the Internet.
A former White House official, who at the time was involved in network defense and other intelligence programs, said that the early 2001 NSA proposal to Qwest was, "Can you build a private version of Echelon and tell us what you see?" Echelon refers to a signals intelligence network operated by the NSA and its official counterparts in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
The NSA realized that it was blind to many of the new online threats and to who was using the privately owned telecom networks, and it thought that Qwest was in a position to help. The agency needed better intelligence in the face of a burgeoning Internet, and Qwest was then building a high-speed network for phone and Internet traffic that had caught the attention of senior intelligence officials. The NSA, in effect, wanted Qwest to be the agency's online eyes and ears.
This is even more indication of the Orwellian realities that the Bush administration has foisted on America. I was talking to some conservative Republicans from Oklahoma, Nevada and Nebraska the other day -- and they are deeply ashamed of Bush and the fact that this happened under their own party's watch.
There is no reason why in cases of national security that the NSA could not have secured warrants for their requests from Qwest and other firms. They are engaging in Soviet style impunity.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
















The former White House official in the story must be Richard A Clarke.
But I don't buy it. The piece is obfuscating with its talk about traffic flow and network security.
(At that time I was CTO in an international telco/internet company in Europe. I know a bit about networks.)
For simple 'flow of traffic' analysis Quest would have had no problem to give away the needed aggregated(!) stuff.
For security (attack on machines etc.) you don't look much at flow of traffic but you start with the attacked machines and work back from there. That usually is no problem even with various network providers involved. It's routine. Quest would have had no problem with that either.
The Echelon comparison shines some light. Echelon does list to 1 on 1 traffic, i.e. to distinct phone calls. It listens into the calls. It is not about traffic flow, it is about the content of the calls.
The NSA did want listen to distinct "calls" or person to person Internet traffic in early 2001. Quest had to deny that for legal reasons.
I wonder why Clarke did that. He must have know that his(?) request would break the law. Who in the White House ordered this?
November 2, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great points, thanks.
Clarke seemed a good soldier, like Powell. I wouldn't be surprised at him making the request, after WH legal counsel signed off, or maybe even before. His issues have never been the legalities but rather the inaction of the administration on terrorism.
November 2, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious as to why Powell always gets a walk on his part of this disaster.
(I'm not being accusatory or taking issue with your comment.)
November 2, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
BINGO!
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
November 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
He said the threat was made clear last spring when a satellite malfunctioned, disabling pagers, automatic money machines, credit card systems, and television networks around the world.
This was not a malfunction. An employee (technician?) made a mistake at the time.
In actuality the mistake was made long before this occurred. It started in the programming that allowed this to occur so easily. Also the mistake was compounded in that it required technicians to visit every receiver and transmitter site to reset the system.
The mistake was made in the beginning of the systems by not planning for different scenarios. It was compounded I am sure by the programmers’ scope and understanding of the whole project being low if not absent. An example you can experience today is to present a check to the Post Office for payment. Your check will be scanned, but the software program does not print you check number on your receipt.
When the programmers have no concept of the financial transactions involved and a simple requirement is left of the program one can imagine what occurs in a complex project.
alleged reasons for the government wanting access to massive call records was not to chase down terrorists but to look for individual and foreign government computer network hackers.
The above could be viewed as noise and propaganda.
Location information is the important information that is overlooked in describing this only as “call records”! Call Records contain so much more information than the words imply. One does note even need to listen to the content of the call as implied by the name to use the information. One can go back in time and know who spent time with a reporter before the leak of administration actions.
Today contractors do the jobs and things like "pre-texting" had to be used to cover the leak of this information. Remember Iran Contra was about self-funding government projects off the books. Today this self-funding could be done by following the locations and communications (drafts of merger contracts) for milking the stock market. Also with contractors involved in selling "communications records" private individuals and investment stock companies could be using this same information from a location outside the U.S. (no taxes) to steel from the citizens money in the market!
Control of information with its power and cash would seem to be the driving force behind this issue as the actors knew the script for the play to be present before they took over the stage of government!
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
November 8, 2007 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink