NSA monitoring all Verizon users

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds. A 2003 newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc, which makes camera technology such as seen on the planes, described flying slowly in left-handed patterns.

why left-handed patterns? isn't there something sinister about that?

[don]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

why left-handed patterns? isn't there something sinister about that?

right-handed Down Under?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities




The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the US carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology – all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, the Associated Press has learned.

The planes’ surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge’s approval, and the FBI said the flights are used for specific, ongoing investigations. In a recent 30-day period, the agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states across the country, an AP review found.

Aerial surveillance represents a changing frontier for law enforcement, providing what the government maintains is an important tool in criminal, terrorism or intelligence probes. But the program raises questions about whether there should be updated policies protecting civil liberties as new technologies pose intrusive opportunities for government spying.

The FBI confirmed for the first time the wide-scale use of the aircraft, which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies, such as FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services. Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department’s inspector general.

“The FBI’s aviation program is not secret,” spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. “Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes.” Allen added that the FBI’s planes “are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance”.

But the planes can capture video of unrelated criminal activity on the ground that could be handed over for prosecutions.

Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they’re not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers into coughing up basic subscriber information, is rare.

Details confirmed by the FBI track closely with published reports since at least 2003 that a government surveillance program might be behind suspicious-looking planes slowly circling neighborhoods. The AP traced at least 50 aircraft back to the FBI, and identified more than 100 flights since late April orbiting both major cities and rural areas.

One of the planes, photographed in flight last week by the AP in northern Virginia, bristled with unusual antennas under its fuselage and a camera on its left side. A federal budget document from 2010 mentioned at least 115 planes, including 90 Cessna aircraft, in the FBI’s surveillance fleet.

The FBI said it also occasionally helps local police with aerial support, such as during the recent disturbance in Baltimore that followed the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, who sustained grievous injuries while in police custody. Those types of requests are reviewed by senior FBI officials.

The surveillance flights comply with agency rules, an FBI spokesman said. Those rules, which are heavily redacted in publicly available documents, limit the types of equipment the agency can use, as well as the justifications and duration of the surveillance.

Details about the flights come as the Justice Department seeks to navigate privacy concerns arising from aerial surveillance by unmanned aircrafts, or drones. Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance, and has called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified programs.

“These are not your grandparents’ surveillance aircraft,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, calling the flights significant “if the federal government is maintaining a fleet of aircraft whose purpose is to circle over American cities, especially with the technology we know can be attached to those aircraft.”

During the past few weeks, the AP tracked planes from the FBI’s fleet on more than 100 flights over at least 11 states plus Washington DC, most with Cessna 182T Skylane aircraft. These included parts of Houston, Phoenix, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis and southern California.

Evolving technology can record higher-quality video from long distances, even at night, and can capture certain identifying information from cellphones using a device known as a “cell-site simulator” – or Stingray, to use one of the product’s brand names. These can trick pinpointed cellphones into revealing identification numbers of subscribers, including those not suspected of a crime.

Officials say cellphone surveillance is rare, although the AP found in recent weeks FBI flights orbiting large, enclosed buildings for extended periods where aerial photography would be less effective than electronic signals collection. Those included above Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota.

After the Washington Post revealed flights by two planes circling over Baltimore in early May, the AP began analyzing detailed flight data and aircraft-ownership registrations that shared similar addresses and flight patterns. That review found some FBI missions circled above at least 40,000 residents during a single flight over Anaheim, California, in late May, according to census data and records provided by the website FlightRadar24.com.

Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds. A 2003 newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc, which makes camera technology such as seen on the planes, described flying slowly in left-handed patterns.

“Aircraft surveillance has become an indispensable intelligence collection and investigative technique which serves as a force multiplier to the ground teams,” the FBI said in 2009 when it asked Congress for $5.1m for the program.

Recently, independent journalists and websites have cited companies traced to a bank of Virginia post office boxes, including one shared with the Justice Department. The AP analyzed similar data since early May, while also drawing upon aircraft registration documents, business records and interviews with US officials to understand the scope of the operations.

The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government’s involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP declined the FBI’s request because the companies’ names – as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department – are listed on public documents and in government databases.

At least 13 front companies that AP identified being actively used by the FBI are registered to post office boxes in Bristow, Virginia, which is near a regional airport used for private and charter flights. Only one of them appears in state business records.

Included on most aircraft registrations is a mysterious name, Robert Lindley. He is listed as chief executive and has at least three distinct signatures among the companies. Two documents include a signature for Robert Taylor, which is strikingly similar to one of Lindley’s three handwriting patterns.

The FBI would not say whether Lindley is a US government employee. The AP unsuccessfully tried to reach Lindley at phone numbers registered to people of the same name in the Washington area since Monday.

Law enforcement officials said Justice Department lawyers approved the decision to create fictitious companies to protect the flights’ operational security and the Federal Aviation Administration was aware of the practice. One of the Lindley-headed companies shares a post office box openly used by the Justice Department.
Such elusive practices have endured for decades. A 1990 report by the then General Accounting Office noted that, in July 1988, the FBI had moved its “headquarters-operated” aircraft into a company that wasn’t publicly linked to the bureau.

The FBI does not generally obtain warrants to record video from its planes of people moving outside in the open, but it also said that under a new policy it has recently begun obtaining court orders to use cell-site simulators. The Obama administration had until recently been directing local authorities through secret agreements not to reveal their own use of the devices, even encouraging prosecutors to drop cases rather than disclose the technology’s use in open court.

A Justice Department memo last month also expressly barred its component law enforcement agencies from using unmanned drones “solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment” and said they are to be used only in connection with authorized investigations and activities. A department spokeswoman said the policy applied only to unmanned aircraft systems rather than piloted airplanes. The first amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and assembly.

as we know, freedom has a price and part of that price is security . . . .


US airport screenings fail to detect mock weapons in 95% of tests

In one test it was reported that TSA screeners failed to find a fake explosive device taped to an undercover agent's back when they patted him down


The US homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson, has ordered improved security at airports and reassigned the top Transportation Security Administration official to another role after reports that screenings failed to detect mock explosives and weapons in 95% of tests carried out by undercover agents.

Airport screeners, who are employed by the Transportation Security Administration, did not detect banned weapons in 67 of 70 tests at dozens of airports, ABC News reported, citing officials briefed on a report by homeland security’s inspector general.

Johnson, whose department oversees the TSA, was briefed last week on the trials, which were completed recently.

In one test it was reported that an undercover agent was stopped when he set off an alarm at a checkpoint but that TSA screeners then failed to find a fake explosive device taped to his back when they patted him down.

Johnson said the results of the security checks were classified but he had directed the TSA to revise screening procedures “to address specific vulnerabilities identified” in the undercover operation. He also ordered that all TSA officers and supervisors across the country be trained and that airports’ screening equipment be tested.

Johnson said there would be more random covert tests.

“The numbers in these reports never look good out of context but they are a critical element in the continual evolution of our aviation security,” he said.
“We take these findings very seriously in our continued effort to test, measure and enhance our capabilities and techniques as threats evolve.”

Johnson said in a statement that Melvin Carraway, acting administrator of the TSA, was being reassigned to another section of homeland security. The TSA acting deputy director, Mark Hatfield, would lead the agency until a replacement was appointed.

Johnson noted that President Barack Obama had nominated coast guard Vice Admiral Pete Neffenger to be the next TSA administrator and urged the US Senate to confirm his nomination as quickly as possible.

Good to at least seem some confirmation of the who.......albeit in a strange offset, arms length way(FBI front companies).

When I first saw the track pattern, my initial thought was SIGINT loitering over a real time target or exercise.

A good example from a couple decades ago would be the Mark Bowden book "Killing Pablo" with reference to Centra Spike.

Something I've run into recently is a new app that is quite interesting and somewhat related:

https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IM...cher-Detector/

An app that acts as an IMSI-catcher detector to detect/avoid fake base stations(such as generic term "stingray" man in the middle attacks used all too frequently by various local/state/federal law enforcement in the US) such as this recent story:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ngray-details/

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

double post.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

Something I've run into recently is a new app that is quite interesting and somewhat related:

https://secupwn.github.io/Android-IM...cher-Detector/

my problem with apps like this is my lack of assurance that it's not some kind of hack/scam itself.

here's another one

https://opensource.srlabs.de/projects/snoopsnitch

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

my problem with apps like this is my lack of assurance that it's not some kind of hack/scam itself.

here's another one

https://opensource.srlabs.de/projects/snoopsnitch

Agreed....you don't know what you don't know.

I'm confident on the app I linked based on the referral I received about it, and who referred it.

I'm also NOT in the field, just obliquely interested and aware of some basics.

I've run it nationwide down here in NZ for a while just out of personal interest, and we're showing up quite clean on "Stingray" man in the middle type towers.

Looking forward to giving it a go in the US later in the year across a number of locations.

It's quite interesting to see the article a few posts up about NSA crypto in RSA products.

20 years ago it would have been front page news...now it's pretty much expected.

It reminds me of when Microsoft dominated in the 90's and was getting hit with anti-monopoly lawsuit threats from sovereign states.

They all kinda went away....I always assumed following deals with national intelligence for access, especially when combined with China's choice to avoid Windows for secure computing solutions.

-----

I've never been a fan of the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about" line of thinking.

I would be more along the lines of "deconstruct the ability for a malignant few to create biased narratives about the benign many".

I strongly suspect the expiry of some Patriot Act type mass surveillance legislation is going to be about as lasting as the elimination of Congressional Insider Trading.

I hope Freedom of the Internet and Freedom from unnecessary surveillance are a pair of related "tentpoles" that everyone finds a way to get behind and support/defend.

Simple messaging with a few A list folks fronting it.

I find it incredibly bizarre that every celebrity in the English speaking west is seemingly a rabid supporter of animal rights, but doesn't seem to give a toss about human rights in terms of freedom of individual thought and expression beyond entertainment.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

Agreed....you don't know what you don't know.

I'm confident on the app I linked based on the referral I received about it, and who referred it.

google et al came under pressure LATER in the process, after they'd been established, to turn over data to the authorities. i would think an app like this would be of particular interest to the fbi, nsa, etc. otoh, i find the notion of being tracked distasteful. the real use of such an app, i would think, would be the defeat of man-in-the-middle activities of a criminal nature.

I've never been a fan of the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about" line of thinking.

my concern is that we're building the infrastructure for big brother. turn-key tyranny.

I find it incredibly bizarre that every celebrity in the English speaking west is seemingly a rabid supporter of animal rights, but doesn't seem to give a toss about human rights in terms of freedom of individual thought and expression beyond entertainment.

"beyond entertainment" means not able to be monetized by the celebrities in question. animal rights=very appealing to adolescents - the mainstay of movie attendance, and monetizable tv-ratings where the key demographic is 18-34.

[vt]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/0...ld-journalist/

[Woodsman]

Re: Meanwhile back in the Friendly Skies

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/0...ld-journalist/

Here's the boy wonder now.



As for the story, you know; such is life in these United States of Amnesia. Like Nigel says, these go to 11.

[Woodsman]

Snowden Vindicated By Congress, President; Neocons Lay Egg

Field Marshal Max Boot, a text book example of neocon martial courage, is having a bit of a fit at Snowden's vindication.

But of course Ed Snowden is not courageous enough, or stupid enough, to criticize the dictatorship that he has defected to. It’s much easier and safer to criticize the country he betrayed from behind the protection provided by the FSB’s thugs. The only mystery is why the Times is giving this traitor a platform.

Too bad for Max:

Former CIA officer and NSA contractor Ed Snowden has taken a surprising swing at his new home, accusing Russia of ‘arbitrarily passing’ new anti-privacy laws.
http://time.com/3910434/edward-snowden-russia/

Now if only neocons were capable of shame and embarrassment. Not Max. He's a neocon think tank warmonger and merely the latest personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice. Snowden sacrificed his liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs while the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for war from the safety of the faculty club lounge.



Max is ever enthusiastic about sending his fellow citizens to fight wars, while never himself having served a single day in so much as a drum major's uniform. And like most neocons - when caught lying or in error - he minimizes or doubles down.



Now I read Max is working on a bio of Ed Lansdale. A liar and fabulist for empire writing a book about a liar and fabulist for empire. What could be more perfect?

The Intercept - Did Max Boot and Commentary lie about Edward Snowden. You Decide.

[don]

Re: Snowden Vindicated By Congress, President; Neocons Lay Egg

having served a single day in so much as a drum major's uniform

guess that rules out a presidential run . . . .

Now I read Max is working on a bio of Ed Lansdale. A liar and fabulist for empire writing a book about a liar and fabulist for empire.

so what do we call that, the quiet american squared? Nope . . . .

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Snowden Vindicated By Congress, President; Neocons Lay Egg

Field Marshal Max Boot, a text book example of neocon martial courage, is having a bit of a fit at Snowden's vindication.


.

A lot of self described liberals are anti-Snowden. I think he made some mistakes, but over all I think he did much more good than harm. I have a very anti-establishment bias, so I'm inclined to give Snowden the benefit of the doubt. I think it's frightening that he has to take refuge in Russia. Does that mean
Sweden and Belize have caved in ?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Snowden Vindicated By Congress, President; Neocons Lay Egg

I was surprised how many people I consider “liberal” were condemning Snowden, saying blanket surveillance is okay-“I got nothing to hide.” What really blows my mind is how much of a bridge to no where this is. 4,000 workers drawing huge salaries in monolith buildings that demand new interstate exits and cause traffic jams for tens of thousands of commuters. Doubt we will be there for the unravelling.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Snowden Vindicated By Congress, President; Neocons Lay Egg

I was surprised how many people I consider “liberal” were condemning Snowden, saying blanket surveillance is okay-“I got nothing to hide.” What really blows my mind is how much of a bridge to no where this is. 4,000 workers drawing huge salaries in monolith buildings that demand new interstate exits and cause traffic jams for tens of thousands of commuters. Doubt we will be there for the unravelling.

One thing I have noticed about many, but fortunately not all, liberals, is that they have no fear of anything the government does. Since we are a democracy, they seem to think everything the government does is for the benefit of the public. Political classes are always self serving (just like every other class). It's just a question of how much they can get away with. And given the general poor performance of our electoral system and government, they can get away with quite a lot.

[don]

House of Mirrors in a Shark Tank

Homeland Security admits Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act raises concerns while corporations and data brokers lobby for bill as it returns to Senate

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Monday said a controversial new surveillance bill could sweep away “important privacy protections”, a move that bodes ill for the measure’s return to the floor of the Senate this week.

The latest in a series of failed attempts to reform cybersecurity, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa) grants broad latitude to tech companies, data brokers and anyone with a web-based data collection to mine user information and then share it with “appropriate Federal entities”, which themselves then have permission to share it throughout the government.

Minnesota senator Al Franken queried the DHS in July; deputy secretary of the department Alejandro Mayorkas responded today that some provisions of the bill “could sweep away important privacy protections” and that the proposed legislation “raises privacy and civil liberties concerns”.

Much of the attention on Cisa has been directed at companies such as Google, Facebook and Comcast, which have large hoards of internet user behavior. But arguably more important are data brokers. Among the groups lobbying for the passage of Cisa are Experian, which tracks consumer trends using information from loyalty cards and other sources and licenses the information to help target advertising; Oracle, whose Data Cloud product works similarly; and Hitrust, which aggregates healthcare information.

The paragraph generating the most concern can be found in section 4 of the bill: “[a] private entity may, for cybersecurity purposes, monitor A) the information systems of such a private entity; B) the information systems of another entity, upon written consent of such other entity […] and D) information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting the information systems monitored by the private entity under this paragraph.”

Debate on the bill could start on Wednesday with a vote on Thursday.

Privacy concerns are already significant in the private sector, where the use of personal data at scale is largely unregulated. “With respect to data brokers that sell marketing products, the Commission recommends that Congress consider legislation requiring data brokers to provide consumers access to their data, including sensitive data held about them, at a reasonable level of detail, and the ability to opt out of having it shared for marketing purposes,” wrote the FTC in a whitepaper titled Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability last May. Such legislation has been introduced, but is repeatedly referred to committee.

Data brokers are anxious to avoid losing the ability to aggregate vast quantities of personal data - the sale and licensing of consumer databases is a lucrative practice, as web advertising booms and TV advertising becomes more sophisticated.

It’s also a practice that prefers not to disclose exactly what information it is holding. Mike Seay, an Illinois man whose child died the year previous, received in 2014 a junk mail flier from OfficeMax addressed to “Mike Seay, Daughter Killed in Car Crash” (this was indeed how his 17-year-old daughter had died).

Cisa’s mandate would seem to cover the publicly used interfaces of the health insurers and banks – including SunTrust, Prudential, American Express, Aflac and Bank of America – that lobbied on the bill.

Drew Mitnick of digital advocacy organization Access Now pointed to language in the bill that would give participants in the proposed information-sharing program immunity not just from prosecution, but from regulatory action. “The transparency requirement is so narrow that, if you met the requirements within the bill to get protection, it would give [participating companies] broad range to collect data and then send it to the government.”

Lobby group the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) on Monday launched an advertising campaign, stopcyberthreats.com, aimed at tackling an online campaign by privacy activists who have dubbed Cisa “the Darth Vader bill” and are worried by the sweeping legal immunity corporations will receive under Cisa.

If the bill were to pass and enough of those companies were to cooperate with any given agency, the amount of information floating free within the federal government could easily extend to credit card histories (collected by data miners at Argus), lists of goods purchased (aggregated from customer loyalty cards by companies including Acxiom and Experian), and healthcare records (tracked by insurers).

Credit check giant Experian said that the company would like to see the legislation pass. “Experian supports legislation that would facilitate greater sharing of cyber threat information among appropriate private and government entities,” said a company spokeswoman in a statement to the Guardian. “Such sharing arrangements, under parameters set by law, could improve our mutual efforts to better detect and respond to emerging cyber threats.”

The company also laid the duty to walk the knife’s edge between citizens’ information security and their personal safety at the feet of their elected officials. “Congress has the responsibility to balance the need for facilitating greater information sharing, and thereby enhancing cyber security, with important consumer privacy concerns. We encourage and support Congress’ effort in striking this balance.”