February 7, 2006 4:00 AM PST
NSA eavesdropping: How it might work
- Related Stories
-
Some companies helped the NSA, but which?
February 6, 2006 -
AT&T sued over NSA spy program
January 31, 2006 -
Bush allies defend NSA surveillance
January 24, 2006 -
Just how extensive is NSA's spy program?
December 22, 2005 -
Carnivore redux
January 31, 2005
WASHINGTON--Even a panel of determined senators couldn't convince Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to divulge much about how the massive surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency actually works.
Gonzales told a Senate committee on Monday that he was not "here to discuss the operational details of that program or any other classified activity." He refused to answer a series of questions such as the number of people who have been wiretapped, the safeguards put into place, and how many NSA analysts are involved in the operation.
News.context
What's new:
General Alberto Gonzales refused to divulge much about how the massive surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency actually works.
Bottom line:
A series of interviews reveals how the program may work, including buddying up to a company with access to cables, tapping transoceanic cables on land and even underwater.
But a series of interviews of technical experts by CNET News.com during the last few weeks may shed some light on how the program--authorized by President Bush soon after Sept. 11, 2001--works in practice.
It's hardly a secret that the NSA specializes in electronic surveillance, called communications intelligence in the vernacular of spies. Author James Bamford's 1982 book, "The Puzzle Palace," documented how the NSA created hundreds of "intercept stations"--ultrasophisticated, hypersensitive radio receivers designed to pluck both military signals and civilian telephone calls out of the air.
That worked well enough when the bulk of international communications were transmitted by bouncing them off satellites. Today, however, an undersea web of fiber-optic cables spans the globe--and those carry the vast majority of voice and data that leave the United States.
Jim Hayes, president of the Fiber Optic Association, a California-based professional organization, says 99 percent of the world's long-distance communications travel through fiber links. The remaining 1 percent, he says, are satellite-based, mainly in places like Africa, South America and less developed parts of Asia.
It's easiest to tap those underwater cables when they make landfall instead of trying to do it underwater, analysts say.

fields questions from senators on
Monday.
"On land, it's not nearly as difficult," said Tim Chovanak, a defense consultant who specializes in network taps and digital forensics. "The easiest thing to do would be to somehow get an agreement with a provider and just simply co-exist in a building, one of the main fiber stations, (peering) points or whatever. In other words, work out something with either a long-haul provider or with an employee."
A survey conducted by CNET News.com and published Monday found not one provider willing to acknowledge participation, with backbone providers being among the most reticent. An article in USA Today on Monday said AT&T, MCI and Sprint were cooperating with the NSA. In addition, AT&T is facing a class action lawsuit filed this week that alleges cooperation with the NSA in violation of federal law.
If a backbone provider cooperated, it would be legally tricky. Under federal law, any person or company who helps someone "intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication"--unless specifically authorized by law--could face criminal charges. Even if cooperation is found to be legal, it could be embarrassing to acknowledge opening up customers' private communications to the perusal of a spy agency.
See more CNET content tagged:
NSA, backbone provider, fiber, fiber-optics, Sprint Nextel
28 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales swore or affirmed that he would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He no doubt did behind closed doors in the classified session, but here are likely answers to some questions the U.S. AG refused to answer in the public session:
Question 1: The number of people monitored?
Likely Answer: ALL CONUS-to-OCONUS and OCONUS-to-CONUS voice and data traffic.
Question 2: Safeguards put in place?
Likely Answer: As required by current Directives.
Question 3: Number of NSA analysts involved in the operation?
Likely Answer: Count the number of cars in the parking lot at Fort Meade, and multiple by three.
JP B-)
Alberto Gonzales WAS NOT sworn in for these hearings.
I defer to childhood author PL Traver's In Only Connect, the Mary Poppins said that writing, "aspires 'to find the human key to the inhuman world about us; to connect the individual with the community, the known with the unknown; to relate the past to the present and both to the future."
The administration seems to be interested in fracturization than connection.
Checking out PBS host Fareed Zakaria's book, the Future of Freedom - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fareedzakaria.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.fareedzakaria.com/</a>
Who is watching the watchers?
Likely no, keeping the American populace blissfully ignorant is not what we do in the U.S.
Gonzales' testimony yesterdya was highly hipocritical to his own DOJ bio:
"[we have] a special obligation to protect America against future acts of terrorism. We will continue to make that our top priority while remaining consistent with our values and legal obligations. That will be the lodestar that guides us in our efforts at the Department." <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/aggonzalesbio.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/aggonzalesbio.html</a>
C'mon, we can handle the truth - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=49" target="_newWindow">http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=49</a>
As to this article, safeguarding our civil rights comes only after national security in importance. So discussing domestic spying in general terms is a good idea but digging into the nuts and bolts of who, how, when and where only aids the enemies of the United States.
Remember them? Those people who, if you are American, European or just non-muslin, want to cut your head off.
Oh, and the Democrat political party benefits too.
I am total disgusted at all political parties, the media and now CNET, using national security issues to gain selfish advantage.
So, speaking for the 25 million living American military veterans, I say...SHAME!
And I bet the dead vets would echo...SHAME!!!
Some will find these slanted to the left. Many are in favor of this information. Which pill will you take the red or the blue? Americans are ready to go through the rabbit hole.
as for the 25 million living veterans--please subtract one and don't bother speaking on my behalf.
mark d. doiron
retired cmsgt, usaf, 27-1/2 years
Go back to watching Fox.
It helps this administration's worst enemy: the Democrats !
They must realize all of them are wiretapped, all their communications are intercepted. As a result, if they want a chance in the tactical game of politics, they'd better encrypt all their correspondence (private/political/business), shut off their cellphone when they don't want their location traced and start behaving like a ... terrorist organization.
And we still call it democracy. What a sick joke !
Having read that article and a dozen others hosted on various sites, pretty much the same information was covered.
Do everyone[this to all who whine about any slant when reading any article with a similar talkback feature] a favor and show where this bias is in the article, rather than falling back to a weak prop concerning past claims of impugned integrity[something that it would fall on the accuser to similarly verify as well].
As far as the article...cynicism rules the day--I was not surprised.
The Shrub scares me at least as much as O. BenLaden.
And I know which one has the football!!!
give the government increased flexibility.
2. In over 20,000 requests over some 28 years (according to Sen
Leahy) FISA has declined something like a dozen of those
requests.
3. The FISA application form is approx. 80-85% boilerplate
according to a CNN security analyst.
4. FISA Permission can be sought after action, so it's no drag on
initiatives.
5. In other words the FISA court is government friendly to a
fault.
I reckon if with FISA the govt. can pretty much do what it needs
to then there are possibly three reasons why they haven't. In
order of likelihood (1) The 900 LB gorilla in the corner (I'll come
back to that in a sec). (2) Arrogance; and (3) Laziness.
I rule out (3) 'cause from all I've seen most lawyers work
themselves to the bone. It could be (2) but 18 microseconds of
reflection by the smart minds of the NSA and Justice ought to
reveal that it isn't worth the trouble it brings - like right now,
and growing.
So, from my lil armchair I reckon (1), the 900 LB Gorilla, namely,
the nature of the "targets" of surveillance. And the only thing I
can think of that would keep folks from using all the free candy
FISA hands out is that those targets are domestic AND
POLITICAL (it wouldn't be the first time - FISA was in part a
reaction to the excesses of past governments in doing just that).
Strangely enough not one senator or congressperson appears to
have asked the "googly" question - "Do you tap me?" or the
closely related "are you/ have you tapped any domestic
Washington political types". Better still: "Can you assure us Mr.
Attorney-General that you have not?" Maybe the Republicans
who voted NOT to swear in the AG already know the answer.
"I'm sorry senator, can you define 'eavesdrop' before I answer the
question?"
Gonzales' stonewalling and hedging certainly suggests there's a
monster under the tablecloth.
Cheney, proof, halliburton, 'creative accounting', lobbyist, Bush, Election, Diebold, Arbusto, 'Soft money', protest, 'Made in Israel', Scalito, Sheenan, 'James R. Bath', 'Intelligent design', Democrat, polls, facts, sex.
That should be enough ;-)
Revealing E-Mail's Secrets
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticleSrc.jhtml?articleID=166403423" target="_newWindow">http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticleSrc.jhtml?articleID=166403423</a>
Below is a post from a message board recomending it and below that a snipit from techweb.com that
mentions the former Homeland Security 'cyber czar',Amit Yoran,who has now replaced Gilman Louie as the CEO of In-Q-Tel.
The link at very bottom is to a news.com article
on the In-Q-Tel's and thus the CIA's Gilman Louie
with my reply to that story,'Gilman Louie and the CIA less than honest' posted as commentary to that news.com article .It would sure be good if news.com followed up with an interview of the new In-Q-Tel CEO Amit Yoran and ask him if he doesn't feel it a conflict of interest for the CIA or others with insider banking and investment records of individuals to also be competing with them in the 'securities' markets to begin with.Not to mention that their SRA International with so many ties and funding
from the Beltway not only may have insider info on banking and investing by way of their Mantas Inc connections but also have allowed their stock to be promoted by Bellador Group of Kuala Lumpur and Dubai,(a known boiler room often dealing in U.S.penny stocks),to recommend SRA Inrternational shares to their clients ! And Bellador Group or belladorgroup.com has also
dumped U.S.penny stocks around Asia and the world that looks suspiciously like money laundering and definitely pump and dump scams.
What is the CIA's and In-Q-Tel's company,SRA International,(that benefits greatly from federal government security and IT contracts and who claim they have anti-money laundering expertise ) Bellador Group connection ? Or at least why did a boiler room operation out of Kuala Lumpur, Dubai,etc. promote SRA International's shares ? Why did this boiler room,that is even suspect in Asian countries they operate out of,recommend SRA International shares to their clients in the first place ? Those questions would be a start and then the ethical and public responsibility the CIA has put itself in by investing in publically owned companies,whose shares they greatly control and economically benefit from the sale of to a potentially naive investing public who may lose money at the CIA empoyees' gain ?
Tony Ryals
Recommended readings:Want to know the hardware behind Echelon? Interception Capabilities 2000
A current example of this technology for emails can be found by reading Revealing E-Mail's Secrets By Larry Greenemeier, InformationWeek August 2005: & Backed by In-Q-Tel, the CIA's technology incubator, Spotfire Inc. this week will introduce a tool for uncovering patterns and relationships in information extracted from E-mail messages&.. In-Q-Tel first approached Spotfire in 2003 when the CIA-backed venture-capital firm was looking to invest in technology that could find critical patterns by translating and analyzing data&. "The application is limited only by the creativity of the person who's trying to apply it."
Posted by: LuckyBogey at December 20, 2005 08:13 AM
From techweb.com :
Homeland Security Elevates Cyber Czar Spot
By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb News
Buried in the massive restructuring plans that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced Wednesday for his 180,000-employee agency is a promotion in the position of national cyber security czar, a move that Congress and the computer security industry has been urging for months.........
"We appreciate both the efficiencies and the vulnerabilities of the modern technology on which so much of our society depends," said Chertoff in prepared remarks Wednesday as he outlined the DHS reorganization. "To centralize the coordination of the efforts to protect technological infrastructure, we will create the new position."
Calls to elevate the cyber czar position go back to mid-2004, but they gathered momentum when former Symantec executive Amit Yoran resigned suddenly from his post as director of the National Cyber Security Division in October, barely 12 months after he took the spot.
The secret behind the CIA's venture capital arm
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/The+secret+behind+the+CIAs+venture+capital+arm/2008-1082_3-5728548.html" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/The+secret+behind+the+CIAs+venture+capital+arm/2008-1082_3-5728548.html</a>