DOCSLIB.ORG

Edwards CX Debate Topic Analysis Part 1D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Edwards CX Debate Topic Analysis Part 1D Surveillance Topic Terms, p. 1 TERMS IN USE ON THE SURVEILLANCE TOPIC Dr. Rich Edwards Professor of Communication Studies Baylor University American Community Survey (ACS): This subset of the U.S. Census asks intrusive questions such as the number of times a person has been married, whether they have a mortgage on their home and whether they are enrolled in a health care plan. The ACS selects a sample size of about 2.5 percent of households each year to complete the survey. The ACS is controversial not only because of its intrusiveness, but also because participation is mandatory – the federal government reportedly pursues participants with phone calls, visits and threats of jail time if they refuse to complete the form. Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT): This is the name given to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s system for storing the fingerprints and facial recognition data for persons applying for visas, immigration benefits and the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The system also stores biometric data for suspected terrorists and immigration law violators. Big Data Research and Development Initiative: The Obama administration launched this program in 2012, providing about $200 million with the announced purpose of “transforming our ability to use Big Data for scientific discovery, environmental and biomedical research, education and national security.” Six federal agencies are involved in the initiative, led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) – the same agency that created the controversial Total Information Awareness program. Biometrics: This term refers to the use for identification purposes of any of the persistent characteristics of the human body. Examples of biometric identification include fingerprints, retina scans, facial recognition and DNA profiles. Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST): This Immigration and Customs Enforcement program is designed to identify and dismantle criminal organizations operating on or near the Mexican border. The BEST program is designed to facilitate cooperation between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement agencies for the purpose of shutting down drug trafficking organizations. Boundless Informant: This is the name for a computer mining system operated by the National Security Agency that reportedly counts the number of telephone calls and emails that have been logged into the agency’s database. According to information leaked by Edward Snowden, the system intercepted within a single 30-day period of 2013 more than 3 billion telephone calls and emails that originated within the United States. Surveillance Topic Terms, p. 2 Bullrun: According to Edward Snowden, this is the name the National Security Agency uses for its program designed to defeat the encryption programs used by various data storage systems. Snowden also claims that the federal government has forced U.S.- based Internet companies to inset “back doors” into their encryption programs, allowing the NSA access to read encrypted messages. Carnivore: This is the name of a controversial system implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997 to monitor email and other electronic messages from a target user. The system has since been replaced by much more capable monitoring systems. Church Committee: Frank Church, a U.S. Senator from Idaho, was selected to chair the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities. This committee was created in 1975 to investigate the way that the Nixon administration had used U.S. intelligence agencies to gather information on political opponents. The disclosures from the committee report – commonly called the “Church Report” – prompted Congress to pass the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA was originally designed to create a wall of separation between foreign and domestic surveillance activities. Agencies such as the CIA and NSA were essentially banned from conducting domestic surveillance; foreign surveillance would be conducted under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). This “wall of separation” between domestic and foreign surveillance would later be blamed for the intelligence mistakes that failed to detect the planning for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The PATRIOT Act would later revise FISA in such a way as to eliminate the wall separating foreign and domestic intelligence gathering. Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA): This 1994 legislation established the procedures by which law enforcement agencies could conduct wiretaps on digital telephone networks. CALEA, since it was created before the recent revolution in Internet and cell phone communication, has been criticized as incapable of protecting contemporary communication from interception by intelligence agencies. Consolidated Cryptologic Program: According to a recent report from the Washington Post, the federal government’s “black budget” provides billions of dollars for this NSA program involving a staff of approximately 35,000 computer specialists charged with breaking encryption systems. Cyberterrorism: Homeland security experts warn that terrorist organizations may soon direct cyber attacks at critical infrastructures such as the electrical grid, financial systems, telecommunication networks, municipal water supplies and even nuclear power plants. Surveillance Topic Terms, p. 3 Data Localization: This refers to the effort of governments to force Internet companies to physically store data within a nation’s own borders rather than to allow the data to cross international boundaries. The Snowden revelations have caused some countries to distrust the security of “cloud-based” data when the servers are located in the United States where they might be subject to NSA snooping. Some experts are concerned that a trend toward data localization could undermine the normal functioning of the Internet; at present, Internet messages are routed over the fastest and most efficient routes, regardless of the geographic location of servers. Data Mining: This term refers to the use of specialized software to send queries to huge databases for the purpose of discovering otherwise hidden patterns and relationships. Corporations engage in data mining in order to strategically target advertising at users most likely to purchase their products. Governments may engage in data mining in order to identify persons or groups perceived as threats to national security. Domestic Communications Assistance Center: This refers to a surveillance unit in Quantico, Virginia designed to be staffed with agents from the FBI, the U.S. Marshalls Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The purpose of the center is to support various law enforcement investigations with information gleaned from wireless providers and social networking systems. E-Government Act of 2002: This legislation requires federal government agencies to provide privacy impact assessments (PIAs) for the ways that they collect, store, share and manage information. The purpose of the Act is to enhance the protection of personal information in government databases. Echelon: This is a secretive data collection system based upon shared information from intelligence agencies in the U.S., England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is thought that the system intercepts international email, fax and telephone communications. The intelligence agencies then use supercomputers to provide analyses of the data. Einstein 3: This software system was designed by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) to identify and disable cyber threats to key U.S. government computer networks. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security views the program as a vital protection against cyber attack, but some privacy advocates worry that the system is overly intrusive in its examination of private emails and other electronic communication. Surveillance Topic Terms, p. 4 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA): This 1986 statute has three essential components: the Wiretap Act, designed to limit the interception of the content of electronic communication; the Pen Register Act, to protect such metadata elements as phone numbers called and persons contacted and the Stored Communication Act, to regulate access to messages held in electronic storage. While the ECPA has the purpose of protecting electronic privacy, the language of the Act is out of date. It was passed before the advent of the Internet and has not been updated to account for changes in how modern messages are sent, stored or retrieved. Executive Order (EO) 12333: This order, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, has been revised by every recent president. It established broad powers for the intelligence community to conduct surveillance on persons living outside the United States. Critics charge that this Executive Order has allowed U.S. intelligence agencies to circumvent the requirements of Congressional and FISA Court oversight. In the course of conducting surveillance on persons living outside the United States, intelligence agencies may also be monitoring the international communication of U.S. citizens. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012: This legislation was designed to force the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish regulations allowing the domestic use of drones. Lobbying groups for farmers have been seeking permission to use inexpensive aerial surveillance systems to examine the status of crops; businesses have been seeking
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case Study of NETRA
    Network Protocols and Algorithms ISSN 1943-3581 2016, Vo l . 8, No. 4 Internet Traffic Surveillance & Network Monitoring in India: Case Study of NETRA Rajan Gupta Dept. of Computer Science, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delhi 1st Floor, North Campus, Delhi – 110007, India E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Sunil Kumar Muttoo Dept. of Computer Science, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delhi 1st Floor, North Campus, Delhi – 110007, India Received: October 20, 2016 Accepted: December 30, 2016 Published: December 31, 2016 DOI: 10.5296/npa.v8i4.10179 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/npa.v8i4.10179 Abstract Internet traffic surveillance is gaining importance in today’s digital world. Lots of international agencies are putting in efforts to monitor the network around their countries to see suspicious activities and illegal or illegitimate transmission of messages. India, being a center of attraction for terrorist activities, is also working towards development of such surveillance systems. NETRA or Network Traffic Analysis is one such effort being taken by the Indian Government to filter suspicious keywords from messages in the network. But is it good enough to be used at highest level for security analysis or does the system design needs to be improved as compared to other similar systems around the world; this question is answered through this study. The comparison of NETRA is done against Dish Fire, Prism and Echelon. The design of the NETRA scheme and implementation level analysis of the system shows few weaknesses like limited memory options, limited channels for monitoring, pre-set filters, ignoring big data demands, security concerns, social values breach and ignoring ethical issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Watching and Resistance to Mass Surveillance After Snowden
    Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) 2015, Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 12-25 Doi: 10.17645/mac.v3i3.277 Article “Veillant Panoptic Assemblage”: Mutual Watching and Resistance to Mass Surveillance after Snowden Vian Bakir School of Creative Studies and Media, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2DG, UK; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 9 April 2015 | In Revised Form: 16 July 2015 | Accepted: 4 August 2015 | Published: 20 October 2015 Abstract The Snowden leaks indicate the extent, nature, and means of contemporary mass digital surveillance of citizens by their intelligence agencies and the role of public oversight mechanisms in holding intelligence agencies to account. As such, they form a rich case study on the interactions of “veillance” (mutual watching) involving citizens, journalists, intelli- gence agencies and corporations. While Surveillance Studies, Intelligence Studies and Journalism Studies have little to say on surveillance of citizens’ data by intelligence agencies (and complicit surveillant corporations), they offer insights into the role of citizens and the press in holding power, and specifically the political-intelligence elite, to account. Atten- tion to such public oversight mechanisms facilitates critical interrogation of issues of surveillant power, resistance and intelligence accountability. It directs attention to the veillant panoptic assemblage (an arrangement of profoundly une- qual mutual watching, where citizens’ watching of self and others is, through corporate channels of data flow, fed back into state surveillance of citizens). Finally, it enables evaluation of post-Snowden steps taken towards achieving an equiveillant panoptic assemblage (where, alongside state and corporate surveillance of citizens, the intelligence-power elite, to ensure its accountability, faces robust scrutiny and action from wider civil society).
    [Show full text]
  • Frank Church, And/ Or United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, And/Or U.S
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000 FOIA Case: 84652B 11 July 2017 JOHN GREENEWALD Dear Mr. Greenewald: This is our final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of 7 June 2016 for Intellipedia pages on the Church Committee, and/ or Frank Church, and/ or United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, and/or U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. A copy of your request is enclosed. In our initial response to you, dated 8 June 2016, we informed you that this request was assigned case number 84652 and that there are no assessable fees for this request. We provided you with two responsive documents on 12 August 2016 and informed you that we continued to work on your case. The final responsive documents are enclosed. This Agency is authorized by statute to protect certain information concerning its activities (in this case, internal URLs) as well as the names of its employees. Such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the third exemption of the FOIA, which provides for the withholding of information specifically protected from disclosure by statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Through a PRISM, Darkly(PDF)
    NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Through a PRISM, Darkly Mark Rumold Staff Attorney, EFF NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Electronic Frontier Foundation NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 What we’ll cover today: • Background; what we know; what the problems are; and what we’re doing • Codenames. From Stellar Wind to the President’s Surveillance Program, PRISM to Boundless Informant • Spying Law. A healthy dose of acronyms and numbers. ECPA, FISA and FAA; 215 and 702. NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 the background NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 changes technologytimelaws …yet much has stayed the same NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The (Way) Background • Established in 1952 • Twin mission: – “Information Assurance” – “Signals Intelligence” • Secrecy: – “No Such Agency” & “Never Say Anything” NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The (Mid) Background • 1960s and 70s • Cold War and Vietnam • COINTELPRO and Watergate NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 The Church Committee “[The NSA’s] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. Telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.” Senator Frank Church, 1975 NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Reform • Permanent Congressional oversight committees (SSCI and HPSCI) • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – Established requirements for conducting domestic electronic surveillance of US persons – Still given free reign for international communications conducted outside U.S. NANOG 59 – October 7, 2013 Changing Technology • 1980s - 2000s: build-out of domestic surveillance infrastructure • NSA shifted surveillance focus from satellites to fiber optic cables • BUT: FISA gives greater protection for communications on the wire + surveillance conducted inside the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Order 12,333: Unleashing the CIA Violates the Leash Law Sherri J
    Cornell Law Review Volume 70 Article 6 Issue 5 June 1985 Executive Order 12,333: Unleashing the CIA Violates the Leash Law Sherri J. Conrad Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Sherri J. Conrad, Executive Order 12,333: Unleashing the CIA Violates the Leash Law, 70 Cornell L. Rev. 968 (1985) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol70/iss5/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12,333: "UNLEASHING" THE CIA VIOLATES THE LEASH LAW "Security is like liberty in that many are the crimes committed in its name." On December 4, 1981, President Ronald Reagan promulgated Executive Order 12,333, establishing United States intelligence guidelines. 2 Restrictions on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were instituted in the 1970s in response to disclosures of wide- spread wrongdoing.3 The Order reflects the President's determina- tion to "unleash" 4 America's intelligence community5 from those limitations. The Order allows the CIA, America's chief foreign in- telligence gathering entity, to direct domestic counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, covert operations, and law enforcement activity against United States citizens. 6 The drafters of the Order ignored the statutory limits on intelligence gathering activity codified in the National Security Act. 7 The President's action thus constitutes a statutorily impermissible license for renewed government intrusion, and the Order should be revoked.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocating for Basic Constitutional Search Protections to Apply to Cell Phones from Eavesdropping and Tracking by Government and Corporate Entities
    University of Central Florida STARS HIM 1990-2015 2013 Brave New World Reloaded: Advocating for Basic Constitutional Search Protections to Apply to Cell Phones from Eavesdropping and Tracking by Government and Corporate Entities Mark Berrios-Ayala University of Central Florida Part of the Legal Studies Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015 University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in HIM 1990-2015 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Berrios-Ayala, Mark, "Brave New World Reloaded: Advocating for Basic Constitutional Search Protections to Apply to Cell Phones from Eavesdropping and Tracking by Government and Corporate Entities" (2013). HIM 1990-2015. 1519. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015/1519 BRAVE NEW WORLD RELOADED: ADVOCATING FOR BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH PROTECTIONS TO APPLY TO CELL PHONES FROM EAVESDROPPING AND TRACKING BY THE GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATE ENTITIES by MARK KENNETH BERRIOS-AYALA A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Legal Studies in the College of Health and Public Affairs and in The Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2013 Thesis Chair: Dr. Abby Milon ABSTRACT Imagine a world where someone’s personal information is constantly compromised, where federal government entities AKA Big Brother always knows what anyone is Googling, who an individual is texting, and their emoticons on Twitter.
    [Show full text]
  • Lonworks® Platform Revision 2
    Introduction to the LonWorks® Platform revision 2 ® 078-0183-01B Echelon, LON, LonWorks, LonMark, NodeBuilder, , LonTalk, Neuron, 3120, 3150, LNS, i.LON, , ShortStack, LonMaker, the Echelon logo, and are trademarks of Echelon Corporation registered in the United States and other countries. LonSupport, , , OpenLDV, Pyxos, LonScanner, LonBridge, and Thinking Inside the Box are trademarks of Echelon Corporation. Other trademarks belong to their respective holders. Neuron Chips, Smart Transceivers, and other OEM Products were not designed for use in equipment or systems which involve danger to human health or safety or a risk of property damage and Echelon assumes no responsibility or liability for use of the Neuron Chips in such applications. Parts manufactured by vendors other than Echelon and referenced in this document have been described for illustrative purposes only, and may not have been tested by Echelon. It is the responsibility of the customer to determine the suitability of these parts for each application. ECHELON MAKES AND YOU RECEIVE NO WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR IN ANY COMMUNICATION WITH YOU, AND ECHELON SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Echelon Corporation. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright
    [Show full text]
  • A Failure of Intelligence: the Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe
    Pace International Law Review Volume 14 Issue 2 Fall 2002 Article 7 September 2002 Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity - A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe Kevin J. Lawner Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Kevin J. Lawner, Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity - A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe, 14 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 435 (2002) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol14/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POST-SEPT. 11TH INTERNATIONAL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY - A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE: THE ECHELON INTERCEPTION SYSTEM & THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN EUROPE Kevin J. Lawner* I. Introduction ....................................... 436 II. Communications Intelligence & the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement ..... 443 A. September 11th - A Failure of Intelligence .... 446 B. The Three Warning Flags ..................... 449 III. The Echelon Interception System .................. 452 A. The Menwith Hill and Bad Aibling Interception Stations .......................... 452 B. Echelon: The Abuse of Power .................. 454 IV. Anti-Terror Measures in the Wake of September 11th ............................................... 456 V. Surveillance Activity and the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe .............................. 460 A. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union... 464 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Communications Surveillance
    Electronic Communications Surveillance LAUREN REGAN “I think you’re misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We’re just saying it’s a little bit weird that you didn’t have to.”—John Oliver on The Daily Show1 The government is collecting information on millions of citizens. Phone, Internet, and email habits, credit card and bank records—vir- tually all information that is communicated electronically is subject to the watchful eye of the state. The government is even building a nifty, 1.5 million square foot facility in Utah to house all of this data.2 With the recent exposure of the NSA’s PRISM program by whistleblower Edward Snowden, many people—especially activists—are wondering: How much privacy do we actually have? Well, as far as electronic pri- vacy, the short answer is: None. None at all. There are a few ways to protect yourself, but ultimately, nothing in electronic communications is absolutely protected. In the United States, surveillance of electronic communications is governed primarily by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), which is an extension of the 1968 Federal Wiretap act (also called “Title III”) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Other legislation, such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), sup- plement both the ECPA and FISA. The ECPA is divided into three broad areas: wiretaps and “electronic eavesdropping,” stored messages, and pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. Each degree of surveillance requires a particular burden that the government must meet in order to engage in the surveillance.
    [Show full text]
  • FBI's Carnivore: How Federal Agents May Be Viewing Your Personal E-Mail and Why There Is Nothing You Can Do About It
    The FBI's Carnivore: How Federal Agents May Be Viewing Your Personal E-Mail and Why There Is Nothing You Can Do About It PETER J. GEORGITON* Much controversy has arisen over the FBI's proposal to use an e-mail and Internet surveillanceprogram, named "Carnivore," to assist its law enforcement efforts on the Information Superhighway. In this note, the authorexamines how Carnivoreoperates and its implicationsfor individuals 'privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). The author concludes that the current state of constitutional and statutory law governing electronicsurveillance indicates that the FBI can utilize Carnivore to conduct a wide range of intrusive searches with little or no legal justification. Carnivore'sability to retrieve more than mere e-mail messages of suspects, the FBI's checkered past on privacy issues, and the lack ofjudicial oversight make the potentialfor abuse of Carnivoregreat. As a result, Congress must take a hard look at both the ECPA and Carnivore to prevent law enforcement agenciesfrom using Carnivore to peer into our personal e-mails and Internet usage. Whether he wrote DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER, or whether he refrainedfrom writing it, made no difference.... The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed-would still have committed, even ifhe had never set pen to paper-the essential crime that contained all others in itself Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealedforever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or laterthey were bound to get you.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Data Center, As Well As Any Search Results Pages
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000 FOIA Case: 84688A 2 May 2017 JOHN GREENEWALD Dear Mr. Greenewald : This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of 14 June 2016 for Intellipedia pages on Boundless Information and/or BOUNDLESS INFORMANT and/or Bull Run and/or BULLRUN and/or Room 641A and/ or Stellar Wind and/ or Tailored Access Operations and/ or Utah Data Center, as well as any search results pages. A copy of your request is enclosed. As stated in our previous response, dated 15 June 2016, your request was assigned Case Number 84688. For purposes of this request and based on the information you provided in your letter, you are considered an "all other" requester. As such, you are allowed 2 hours of search and the duplication of 100 pages at no cost. There are no assessable fees for this request. Your request has been processed under the FOIA. For your information, NSA provides a service of common concern for the Intelligence Community (IC) by serving as the executive agent for Intelink. As such, NSA provides technical services that enable users to access and share information with peers and stakeholders across the IC and DoD.
    [Show full text]
  • George Thorley Class 12 Project
    SURVEILLANCE !1 Surveillance Watch The Many, To Catch The Few George J. Thorley Norwich Steiner School Author Note George J. Thorley, Level 3 Steiner School Certificate, Norwich Steiner School. This report is the piece of work required for the Steiner School Certificate Level 3 Class 12 Project. Correspondence concerning this report should be addressed to George Thorley, Norwich Steiner School, Hospital Lane, Norwich, NR1 2HW. Contact: [email protected] 11 - 05 - 2017 SURVEILLANCE !2 Contents Title 1 Summary 3 Introduction 4 Historical Context 5 9/11 7 USA PATRIOT Act 2001 8 Presidents Surveillance Program 10 The Timeline 12 Edward J Snowden 16 Prism 17 Tempora 20 Treasure Map 21 Conclusion 23 Diagrams 26 References 27 11 - 05 - 2017 SURVEILLANCE !3 Summary In this report, my main question will be: What was the extent of government mass surveillance, in particular the NSA in the United States, running from the September 11 attacks in 2001, to the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013? In answering this I will focus on how public and political feelings prompted the conditions possible for the security forces to be doing what they do in todays world. In particular, I will be looking at the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States (US) and some of the revelations brought forward by Edward Snowden in 2013, along with the scale of involvement of the United Kingdom’s (UK) Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ). I will then look at some of the fundamental questions that surround the world of mass surveillance, such as the effectiveness of the programs that were acted upon by security agencies, who they were really looking for, and whether, in my eyes, their methods were morally right.
    [Show full text]