DOCSLIB.ORG

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 154, Pt. 1 January 25, 2008 Mr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 154, Pt. 1 January 25, 2008 Mr 868 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 154, Pt. 1 January 25, 2008 Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam Presi- This is a very controversial and dif- we are going after the bad guys, and we dent, I appreciate very much the argu- ficult subject. Frankly, nearly every- have a right to do that. And we did this ments made by the very distinguished one, with the possible exception of the program because the process that had Senator from Missouri, who is also the chairman and ranking member or been set up because of abuses with re- vice chairman of the Intelligence Com- maybe one or two others on the Intel- spect to eavesdropping and spying on mittee and possesses great experience ligence Committee, knows very little American citizens decades ago, that in this area. My point, though, is that about that which we are discussing. process was way too cumbersome, took all these arguments are for naught if Let me put up a photograph of a far too much time, and we needed to the simple courtesy of a Senator being door. This is a door in San Francisco, streamline that. That is a paraphrase. allowed to vote on his amendment is CA, a rather unremarkable photograph But there was an admission that this not honored. of a door. This is a door that is in program existed and no additional This particular amendment being AT&T’s central offices in San Fran- legal authority needed to empower the nongermane postcloture means it may cisco. A courageous employee of AT&T President to do it. very well be squeezed out by the proce- named Mark Klein, who had been with So that is where we are. Most of us dural devices the Republican leader has the company for 22 years, blew the don’t know the full extent of this pro- applied. So my simple question is, if I whistle on what was happening behind gram at all. In fact, my understanding may ask it through the Chair to the this door. According to Mark Klein, the is that rooms like this exist in other distinguished Senator from Missouri, National Security Agency had con- parts of the country with other tele- the Republican manager of this bill, nected fiber optic cables to AT&T’s cir- phone companies where splitters are can we assure Senator SPECTER and cuits through which the National Secu- used to move data to separate rooms myself that this amendment will, at rity Agency could essentially monitor and data is evaluated. the appropriate time in this legisla- all of the data crossing the Internet. This whole process comes from sev- tion, receive a vote? Here is what Mr. Klein had to say went eral decades ago when something Mr. BOND. Madam President, I am on behind this door: called the FISA Court was set up, a happy to respond as soon as we go back It appears the [National Security Agency] court to evaluate the questions about to the normal means of proceeding on is capable of conducting what amounts to when it is legal and appropriate and FISA matters, establishing a 60-vote vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data when the Government is able to inter- threshold, which is the standard I had crossing the Internet—whether that be peo- cept communications. The FISA Court to meet to bring the Protect America ple’s e-mail, web surfing, or any other data. was established for the very purpose of Act to the floor. I would certainly ex- The description of what was hap- trying to make the judgment about pect that his amendment would be pening at this one telephone company when it is appropriate to go after the brought up, fully discussed, and de- in this one location in San Francisco bad guys and how to protect our civil bated. This is one of the major issues was this: the intercepting of commu- liberties at the same time. we have to decide. But we have to de- nications at the AT&T Folsom Street The FISA Court was an outgrowth of cide it on a 60-vote point of order. facility, millions, perhaps billions of concern by the Congress when we dis- communications from ordinary Ameri- f covered that there was a time in this cans coming into and through the facil- country when we had the National Se- MORNING BUSINESS ity, which would normally have been curity Agency running secret projects Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask the case for a telephone company, and called Shamrock and Minaret to gather unanimous consent that the Senate a splitter being used, according to the both international communications proceed to a period of morning business discussion by Mark Klein, splitting off and also domestic communications. with Senators permitted to speak for all of this conversation into an NSA- Project Shamrock actually started up to 10 minutes each. controlled room, to be eventually eval- during the Second World War when The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without uated with sophisticated programming, major communications companies of objection, it is so ordered. and then going back out in order to the day gave the Federal Government The Senator from North Dakota. complete the communication. So you access to all of their international traf- f have effectively a copy of everything fic. One can imagine, in the fight that is happening going through with a against the Nazis and the Japanese Im- FISA splitter to a secret room. perial Army, the desire for inter- Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we When this became public, when a national communications to evaluate are talking about FISA we use a lot of whistleblower working for the com- things that might threaten this coun- acronyms in Washington, DC, unfortu- pany said, here is what is happening, try’s security. But the Shamrock pro- nately—the Foreign Intelligence Sur- there was an unbelievable outcry on gram then, as we know, changed over veillance Act. It is a complicated sub- both sides. Some people said: What on time. ject, and one, if people have been Earth is happening? We have secret At first the goal was to intercept watching the debate, that is also con- rooms in which the National Security international telegrams relating to for- troversial. There is a lot of passion Agency is running all this data and all eign targets. Then, soon the Govern- about this subject. We have people this information through and spying on ment began to intercept telegrams of standing up and saying: None of this American citizens? Others said: What U.S. citizens. By the time there were should be disclosed. We should not be is going on? Who on Earth would have hearings held in the Congress, the Na- talking about this. This is about the decided they should disclose this pub- tional Security Agency was inter- ability to protect our country against licly? They are going to alert the ter- cepting and analyzing about 150,000 terrorists. Of course, we have to listen rorists to what we are doing. We had messages per month. into communications and intercept both sides aghast that this was dis- Data from Project Shamrock was communications. It is the only way to closed. It is important to say that, ini- then used for another project code find out if there are terrorist acts tially, almost no one in an official ca- named Project Minaret, which we now being plotted by terrorist groups, and pacity was willing to admit to this. Fi- know spied on perceived political oppo- so on. There is that kind of thing. nally, it was admitted, yes, there was a nents of the then-administration of There are concerns on the other side program. The President said: Yes, Richard Nixon. Under this program the by people who say: Wait a second. there is a program—speaking, appar- NSA added Vietnam war protesters to There is something called a Constitu- ently, of just this program; we don’t its watch list. After there was a march tion in this country. There is a right to know of other programs that exist or on the Pentagon, the Army requested privacy, a right to expect that the Gov- may exist, but this program existed that they add antiwar protesters. The ernment will not be spying on Amer- without our knowledge. The President list included people such as folk singer ican citizens without cause. indicated this program existed because Joan Baez and civil rights leader Dr. VerDate Mar 15 2010 08:13 Sep 24, 2010 Jkt 069102 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 0686 Sfmt 0634 E:\BR08\S25JA8.000 S25JA8 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BOUND RECORD January 25, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 154, Pt. 1 869 Martin Luther King, Jr. We just cele- cation. That, in my judgment, does not ican people is you are not willing to brated within the week the Federal pass the red face test. stand up for the security of this coun- holiday celebrating the birthday of I hope very much we will begin to try. Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet it was not learn at some point what this adminis- It is outrageous. It is dragging this too many decades ago that Dr. Martin tration has done, when they did it, and issue smack-dab in the middle of their Luther King, Jr., was under surveil- what the consequences of it are. This little political balloon. But this is a lance by his own Government. issue of the Foreign Intelligence Sur- much more important process than The Congress passed its findings, veillance Act has become a political that.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents Acknowledgements
    The Data Privacy/National Security Balancing Paradigm as Applied In The U.S.A. and Europe: Achieving an Acceptable Balance Paul Raphael Murray, B.A. H.Dip in Ed. LL.B. LL.M Ph.D. (NUI) Submitted for the Degree of Doctor in Philosophy at Trinity College, Dublin School of Law August 2017 Declaration and Online Access I declare that this thesis has not been submitted as an exercise for a degree at this or any other university and it is entirely my own work. I agree to deposit this thesis in the University’s open access institutional repository or allow the library to do so on my behalf, subject to Irish Copyright Legislation and Trinity College Library conditions of use and acknowledgement. Paul Raphael Murray Acknowledgements I would like to record my thanks to my Supervisor, Professor Neville Cox, School of Law, and Dean of Graduate Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, for his help and guidance. i ii Abstract The Data Privacy/National Security Balancing Paradigm as Applied In The U.S.A. and Europe: Achieving an Acceptable Balance Paul Raphael Murray The overall research question addressed in this thesis is the data privacy/national security balancing paradigm, and the contrasting ways in which this operates in Europe and the U.S. Within this framework, the influences causing the balance to shift in one direction or another are examined: for example, the terrorist attacks on two U.S. cities in 2001 and in various countries in Europe in the opening decade of the new millennium, and the revelations by Edward Snowden in 2013 of the details of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers
    A Public Accountability Defense For National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Yochai Benkler, A Public Accountability Defense For National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers, 8 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 281 (2014). Published Version http://www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/hlpr/files/2014/08/ HLP203.pdf Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12786017 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers Yochai Benkler* In June 2013 Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Barton Gellman be- gan to publish stories in The Guardian and The Washington Post based on arguably the most significant national security leak in American history.1 By leaking a large cache of classified documents to these reporters, Edward Snowden launched the most extensive public reassessment of surveillance practices by the American security establishment since the mid-1970s.2 Within six months, nineteen bills had been introduced in Congress to sub- stantially reform the National Security Agency’s (“NSA”) bulk collection program and its oversight process;3 a federal judge had held that one of the major disclosed programs violated the
    [Show full text]
  • September 15, 2014 Dear Members of Congress, We, the Undersigned
    September 15, 2014 Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned civil liberties advocates, organizations, and whistleblowers, are alarmed that Senator Leahy's recently introduced bill, the USA FREEDOM Act (S. 2685), legalizes currently illegal surveillance activities, grants immunity to corporations that collaborate to violate privacy rights, reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act for an additional 2.5 years, and fails to reform EO 12333 or Section 702, other authorities used to collect large amounts of information on Americans. For these reasons, we encourage both the House and the Senate to oppose this legislation in its current form. Governmental security agencies' zeal for collecting Americans' personal information without regard for cost, efficacy, legality, or public support necessitates that Congress act to protect the rights of residents across the United States and around the globe. Our fundamental civil rights – the human rights we hold dear – are not adequately protected by either the Senate or House versions of the USA FREEDOM Act. The reckless actions of top officials charged with ensuring national security – from lying to Congress to secretly weakening security standards to hacking the communications of our allies – has undermined global confidence that the United States can act as an ethical Internet steward. The 11th-hour gutting of the USA FREEDOM Act in the House of Representatives and the CIA’s recent illegal spying on the U.S. Senate underscore just how powerful and out of control this surveillance regime has become. Time and again, these agencies have relied on aggressive manipulation of legal loopholes to thoroughly undermine safeguards and checks and balances. As just one example of why clarity in law is now necessary, the collection of information on all domestic phone calls was justified under the “relevancy” standard in the PATRIOT Act.
    [Show full text]
  • The NSA Is on the Line -- All of Them
    The NSA is on the line -- all of them An intelligence expert predicts we'll soon learn that cellphone and Internet companies also cooperated with the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on us. By Kim Zetter, Salon.com May. 15, 2006 | When intelligence historian those safeguards had little effect in preventing Matthew Aid read the USA Today story last at least three telecommunications companies Thursday about how the National Security from repeating history. Agency was collecting millions of phone call records from AT&T, Bell South and Verizon for Aid, who co-edited a book in 2001 on signals a widespread domestic surveillance program intelligence during the Cold War, spent a designed to root out possible terrorist activity in decade conducting more than 300 interviews the United States, he had to wonder whether with former and current NSA employees for his the date on the newspaper wasn't 1976 instead new history of the agency, the first volume of of 2006. which will be published next year. Jeffrey Richelson, a senior fellow at the National Aid, a visiting fellow at George Washington Security Archive, calls Aid the top authority on University's National Security Archive, who has the NSA, alongside author James Bamford. just completed the first book of a three-volume history of the NSA, knew the nation's Aid spoke with Salon about how the NSA has bicentennial marked the year when secrets learned to maneuver around Congress and the surrounding another NSA domestic Department of Justice to get what it wants. He surveillance program, code-named Project compared the agency's current data mining to Shamrock, were exposed.
    [Show full text]
  • 1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    1 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY COHN (145997) 2 [email protected] LEE TIEN (148216) 3 [email protected] KURT OPSAHL (191303) 4 [email protected] KEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) 5 [email protected] CORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504) 6 [email protected] JAMES S. TYRE (083117) 7 [email protected] 454 Shotwell Street 8 San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: 415/436-9333 9 415/436-9993 (fax) 10 TRABER & VOORHEES BERT VOORHEES (137623) 11 [email protected] THERESA M. TRABER (116305) 12 [email protected] 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 13 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: 626/585-9611 14 626/ 577-7079 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 [Additional counsel appear following the signature page.] 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 TASH HEPTING, GREGORY HICKS, ) No. C-06-0672-VRW 20 CAROLYN JEWEL and ERIK KNUTZEN on ) Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly ) CLASS ACTION 21 Situated, ) ) DECLARATION OF MARK KLEIN IN 22 Plaintiffs, ) SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 23 vs. ) ) Date: June 8, 2006 24 AT&T CORP., AT&T INC. and DOES 1-20, ) Time: 2:00 p.m. inclusive, ) Court: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor 25 ) Judge: The Hon. Vaughn R. Walker, Defendants. ) 26 ) Chief United States District Judge 27 [REDACTED] 28 DECLARATION OF MARK KLEIN C-06-0672-VRW -1- 1 I, Mark Klein, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct: 2 1. I am submitting this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a 3 Preliminary Injunction. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, unless stated 4 on information and belief, and if called upon to testify to those facts I could and would 5 competently do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Condemnation of U.S. Mass-Surveillance Programs, and a Reminder of Our Ethical Responsibilities As Computer Scientists
    Statement of Condemnation of U.S. Mass-Surveillance Programs, and a Reminder of Our Ethical Responsibilities as Computer Scientists We have all been hearing about the NSA’s mass-surveillance programs, which go by names like PRISM, BULLRUN, Boundless Informant, and X-Keyscore. The extent of these systems, and of corporate cooperation in U.S. mass-surveillance efforts, have been made public due to disclosures by whistle-blowers like William Binney, Mark Klein, and Edward Snowden, and by authors/journalists like James Bamford, Siobhan Gorman, and Glenn Greenwald. As a scientist who has spent his career studying cryptography—the “mathematical” study of privacy and security—I herein condemn and assert my repugnance of the USA’s mass- surveillance programs, and those of all other countries. Mass-surveillance is intimidating, abuse-prone, and anti-democratic. It is likely to engender a dystopian future. I assert that: Surveillance data should be collected only on specific targets and for specific cause; entire populations should never be surveilled. It is contrary to the ethical obligations of cryptographers, computer scientists, and engineers to participate in the development of technologies for mass surveillance. It is also a violation of professional codes of conduct. It is contrary to corporate responsibility for a company to develop, sell, or support systems, either hardware or software, intended for mass surveillance. Cryptographic protections must never be intentionally subverted by bulk provisioning of private keys or plaintexts to any authority. If such compromise is ordered by a court, users must be informed. If the court order forbids disclosure, it lacks ethical legitimacy.
    [Show full text]
  • SURVEILLE NSA Paper Based on D2.8 Clean JA V5
    FP7 – SEC- 2011-284725 SURVEILLE Surveillance: Ethical issues, legal limitations, and efficiency Collaborative Project This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 284725 SURVEILLE Paper on Mass Surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States of America Extract from SURVEILLE Deliverable D2.8: Update of D2.7 on the basis of input of other partners. Assessment of surveillance technologies and techniques applied in a terrorism prevention scenario. Due date of deliverable: 31.07.2014 Actual submission date: 29.05.2014 Start date of project: 1.2.2012 Duration: 39 months SURVEILLE WorK PacKage number and lead: WP02 Prof. Tom Sorell Author: Michelle Cayford (TU Delft) SURVEILLE: Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme Dissemination Level PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Commission Services) Executive summary • SURVEILLE deliverable D2.8 continues the approach pioneered in SURVEILLE deliverable D2.6 for combining technical, legal and ethical assessments for the use of surveillance technology in realistic serious crime scenarios. The new scenario considered is terrorism prevention by means of Internet monitoring, emulating what is known about signals intelligence agencies’ methods of electronic mass surveillance. The technologies featured and assessed are: the use of a cable splitter off a fiber optic backbone; the use of ‘Phantom Viewer’ software; the use of social networking analysis and the use of ‘Finspy’ equipment installed on targeted computers.
    [Show full text]
  • Schuchardt V. Obama
    Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB Document 19 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ELLIOTT J. SCHUCHARDT, CIVIL DIVISION individually and doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, on behalf Case No. 2:14-cv-00705-CB of himself and all others similarly situated, COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, v. CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BARACK H. OBAMA, in his capacity as President of the United States; JAMES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED R. CLAPPER, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence; ADM. MICHAEL S. ROGERS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service; and JAMES B. COMEY, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Elliott J. Schuchardt, individually and doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, files this Amended Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated. Parties 1. The Plaintiff, Elliott J. Schuchardt, is an attorney having an office located at United States Steel Building, Suite 660, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 2. Defendant Barack H. Obama is President of the United States. As such, he has ultimate authority over the actions of the United States federal government. President Obama maintains an address at The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20500. Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB Document 19 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 30 3. Defendant James R. Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”).
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutive Surveillance and Social Media’, in Hunsinger, J., Allen
    Constitutive Surveillance and Social Media by Ryan Tippet A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Otago New Zealand ABSTRACT Starting from the premise that surveillance is the ‘dominant organising practice’ of our time (Lyon et al 2012: 1), this thesis establishes a framework of ‘constitutive surveillance’ in relation to social media, taking Facebook as its key example. Constitutive surveillance is made up of four forms: economic, political, lateral, and oppositional surveillance. These four surveillance forms – and the actors who undertake them – intersect, compound, and confront one another in the co-production of social media spaces. The framework of constitutive surveillance is structured around a Foucauldian understanding of power, and the thesis shows how each surveillance form articulates strategies of power for organising, administering, and subjectifying populations. After outlining the four surveillance forms, each chapter unpacks the relationship of one form to social media, building throughout the thesis an extensive critical framework of constitutive surveillance. i ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks first of all to my supervisor, Dr Brett Nicholls, for his insight, support, and guidance on this project, which was invaluable in helping me to identify and pursue some of the thesis’ most interesting questions and ideas. Thank you also to my many inspiring postgraduate colleagues in the Department of Media, Film and Communication, especially George, Paul, Chloe, Chris, Lewis, Edmund, Kevin, Thaera, Massi, David, and Alex. And to Peter – your bottomless reserve of cheer and goodwill will always be missed, and never forgotten. Thanks to other department faculty, past and present, for your generous feedback and support, especially Holly, Rosie, Anne, and Vijay.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Data Surveillance and Security Intelligence the Canadian Case
    Big Data Surveillance and Security Intelligence The Canadian Case Edited by David Lyon and David Murakami Wood Sample Material © UBC Press 2021 © UBC Press !"!# All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: Big data surveillance and security intelligence : the Canadian case / edited by David Lyon and David Murakami Wood. Names: Lyon, David, editor. | Wood, David Murakami, editor. Description: Includes bibliographical references and index. Identi$ers: Canadiana (print) !"!""%%%#&% | Canadiana (ebook) !"!""%%%''( | ISBN )('"((&'*&#(* (hardcover) | ISBN )('"((&'*&#)" (PDF) | ISBN )('"((&'*&!"* (EPUB) Subjects: LCSH: Electronic surveillance – Canada. | LCSH: Intelligence service – Canada. | LCSH: Cyber intelligence (Computer security) – Canada. | LCSH: National security – Canada. | LCSH: National security – International cooperation. | LCSH: Data protection – Canada. Classi$cation: LCC JL'*.I+' B+& !"!" | DDC %!(.#!(#—dc!% UBC Press gratefully acknowledges the $nancial support for our publishing program of the Government of Canada (through the Canada Book Fund) and the British Columbia Arts Council. Set in Helvetica Condensed and Minion by Apex CoVantage, LLC Copy editor: Francis Chow Proofreader: Judith Earnshaw Indexer: Delano Aragão Vaz Cover designer: Alexa Love UBC Press ,e University of British Columbia !"!) West Mall Vancouver,
    [Show full text]
  • What We Still Don't Know About the NSA's Internet Surveillance
    Security What we still don't know about the NSA's Internet surveillance By ProPublica Jul 23, 2013 By Justin Elliott ProPublica Among the snooping revelations of recent weeks, there have been tantalizing bits of evidence that the NSA is tapping fiber-optic cables that carry nearly all [submarine-cable-map- 2013.telegeography.com/] international phone and Internet data. The idea that the NSA is sweeping up vast data streams via cables and other infrastructure — often described as the "backbone of the Internet" — is not new. In late 2005 [www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html], the New York Times first described the tapping, which began after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. More details emerged in early 2006 when an AT&T whistleblower came forward [www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70621]. But like other aspects [www.propublica.org/article/nsa-black-hole-5-basic-things-we-still-dont- know-the-governments-snoop] of NSA surveillance, virtually everything about this kind of NSA surveillance is highly secret and we're left with far from a full picture. Is the NSA really sucking up everything? It's not clear. The most detailed, though now dated, information on the topic comes from Mark Klein. He's the former AT&T technician who went public [www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70621] in 2006 describing the installation in 2002-03 of a secret room in an AT&T building in San Francisco. The equipment, detailed in technical documents [www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/05/mark_klein_docu/], allowed the NSA to conduct what Klein described as "vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the internet -- whether that be peoples' e-mail, web surfing or any other data." Klein said [www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/kleininterview] he was told there was similar equipment installed at AT&T facilities in San Diego, Seattle, and San Jose.
    [Show full text]
  • Case3:08-Cv-04373-JSW Document88 Filed07/02/12 Page1 of 10
    Case3:08-cv-04373-JSW Document88 Filed07/02/12 Page1 of 10 CINDY COHN (145997) RACHAEL E. MENY (178514) [email protected] [email protected] 2 LEE TIEN (148216) PAULA L. BLIZZARD (207920) KURT OPSAHL (191303) MICHAEL S. KWUN (198945) 3 JAMES S. TYRE (083117) AUDREY WALTON-HADLOCK (250574) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 4 454 Shotwell Street 71 0 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94110 San Francisco, California 94111-1704 5 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 436-9993 Fax: (415) 397-7188 6 THOMAS E. MOORE III (115107) RICHARD R. WIEBE (121156) [email protected] 7 [email protected] THE MOORE LAW GROUP LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE 228 Hamilton A venue, 3rd Floor 8 One California Street, Suite 900 Palo Alto, CA 94301 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (650) 798-5352 9 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Fax: (650) 798-5001 Fax: (415) 433-6382 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 ) CASE NO. CV-08-04373-JSW 14 CAROLYN JEWEL, TASH HEPTING, ) GREGORY HICKS, ERIK KNUTZEN and ) 15 JOICE WALTON, on behalfofthemselves and ) DECLARATION OF WILLIAM E. all others similarly situated, ) BINNEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' 16 ) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY Plaintiffs, ) JUDGMENT REJECTING THE 17 ) GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS' STATE v. ) SECRET DEFENSE 18 ) NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, eta!., ) Date: September 28, 2012 19 ) Time: 9:00 a.m. Defendants. ) Courtroom 11, 19th Floor 20 _____________________________ ) The Honorable Jeffrey S. White 21 22 23 I, William Binney, declare: 24 1. I am a former employee of the National Security Agency ("NSA"), the signals 25 intelligence agency within the Department of Defense.
    [Show full text]