News Blog

The House of Representatives on Friday voted overwhelmingly in favor of a "compromise" spy law that would shield AT&T and other companies from pending lawsuits accusing them of opening their networks to the government in violation of wiretap laws.

The major sticking point in the contentious rewrite of a 1978 electronic-surveillance law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was whether to grant so-called retroactive legal immunity to telephone companies being sued for their participation in the warrantless surveillance program secretly begun by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks.

Touted by Republicans as a "compromise," the bill, passed on a 293-129 vote, would not provide retroactive immunity, per se. It would, however, shift the debate behind closed doors, allowing U.S. district courts to dismiss lawsuits if there was written documentation that the White House asked a company to participate and assured it the surveillance was legal.

While expected to pass in the Senate next week, the White House-backed bill could have a harder time in that chamber, where a small minority is better able to block legislation from proceeding. Time is of the essence, as Congress nears a planned July 4th-week recess.

(Credit: USCG)

You can't really say you have a private beach until you've installed a SM 2000 Underwater Surveillance System by Kongsberg to keep out the riffraff.

The system is designed to protect commercial piers, government and military vessels, cruise ships, terminals, and other high-value assets, but it'll work just as well for your hideaway surf break. You know it's good if the oil sheiks buy it. Kongsberg installed an integrated system at a "High-Value Seaside resort" in the United Arab Emirates; the exact location is classified.

The U.S. Coast Guard just picked up $2 million of Kongsberg gear to enhance its Integrated Anti-swimmer Systems (IAS) program at the nation's ports. The purchase follows the initial IAS contract worth $3 million.

Using software and sonar the system can detect and differentiate between "malicious swimmers and divers" and other targets, such as marine life and debris, at up to 1000 meters, according to the British Columbia-based company. A processor "captures a wide acoustic swath" to positively identify and localize the threat, then notifies security (PDF).

You'll be relieved to know that the Coast Guard and the EPA have concluded that the system will not "adversely affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitat." Whether a diver could do enough damage to justify the multimillion-dollar investment is open to debate.

Someone poaching in your favorite abalone patch? A frogman can be warned that he is in a restricted area and should surface immediately by "underwater loudhailer." If that doesn't work, deploy the "nonlethal interdiction acoustic impulse," an underwater shockwave emitter--which, despite its name, can be set on stun or kill.

The U.S. Congress may soon vote on a new "compromise" spy law that would still likely derail pending suits against AT&T and other companies accused of opening their networks to the government in violation of wiretap law.

Democratic leaders, facing intense election year pressure from Republicans and more conservative "Blue Dog" members of their own party, had said they hoped to reach an agreement on a contentious rewrite of a 1978 electronic-surveillance law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, before their Memorial Day recess.

That self-imposed deadline passed without action. The major sticking point has been whether to grant so-called retroactive legal immunity to telephone companies facing lawsuits over allegations that they illegally assisted the National Security Agency, violating their customers' privacy.

The latest proposal, which Republicans are touting as a "compromise," would shift that debate behind closed doors, allowing a secret court to dismiss lawsuits related to the president's warrantless-wiretapping program--that is, during the period after the Sept. 11 attacks and before then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales agreed to submit the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program to the same secret court for review.

In order to dismiss the suits, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose 11 judges are appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's chief justice, would be required only to consider whether the attorney general's "certification" requesting surveillance assistance from a communications company was terrorism-related and legally authorized by the president. That's according to a draft proposal and summary provided by Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.)'s office and discussed at a press conference last week.

"It's clear that they're giving (the provisions) nice titles, and Bond is suggesting that he's made a lot of concessions, but ultimately, the way the provisions work out is, the administration gets what it wants," Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington office, said in a phone interview. "The immunity provision is garbage."

Critics--including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which have filed legal challenges against the surveillance activities--say that would amount to a rubber stamp of sorts on any past warrantless eavesdropping.

Aides to Democratic leaders told CNET News.com that their bosses are reviewing the proposal and haven't yet taken a position on it. But civil-liberties groups say they fear that, thanks to political pressure, they will ultimately accept much what they call a "sham" compromise.

The White House and Republicans, of course, have preferred all along to give more blanket "retroactive" immunity to telephone companies. Earlier this year, they appeared poised to get their way, when the U.S. Senate voted to approve a bill (PDF) that likely would have wiped out scores of pending legal challenges against the likes of AT&T and Verizon Communications.

But the House of Representatives ultimately objected to that approach and refused to call up that bill for a vote, opting instead to narrowly approve a version (PDF) lacking so-called "retroactive immunity" for phone and Internet companies accused of wrongdoing.

The "compromise" this time around appears to involve a couple of things: Outside parties challenging the government's warrantless surveillance would be allowed to submit briefs to the secret court. There would also be an arguably lower legal standard than in the already-approved Senate bill for when court would be allowed to review the attorney general's "certifications," though civil-liberties groups said it's unclear exactly how that will work in reality.

Under the revised proposal, the secret court would also have the option of sending a legal challenge back to a regular federal court, if it--and a subsequent secret appeals court--determines the case against a phone company should not be dismissed.

There's no guarantee, however, that such a move, if it even occurred, would not result in the federal court simply throwing out the case itself. After all, appeals courts have already dismissed similar suits on the grounds that state secrets would be revealed.

And throughout it all, a good amount of secrecy would be required under the revised bill. For instance, the secret court would be prohibited from disclosing how or why it reached a particular conclusion about whether to dismiss a case, if the attorney general declared that such revelations would harm "national security."

What remains unclear is what happens next. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he now hopes to call up a compromise bill for a vote sometime before Congress departs for its August recess. Hoyer has also said "differences" remain to be worked out among their versions, but it wasn't immediately clear what those differences are, as a Hoyer representative didn't immediately respond to requests for elaboration.

Democrats, meanwhile, insisted again that intelligence agents aren't hamstrung by the lack of legal changes so far.

"Our intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep America safe, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that this remains the case," Hoyer said. "The Director of National Intelligence has not informed us of any degradation in intelligence collection, and we continue to call on him to inform Congress if this changes."

RICHMOND, Calif.--Taking a cue from surveillance camera-laden London, this San Francisco Bay Area city is installing security camera systems for the police and at the port to reduce crime and protect against terrorism.

The systems are being built and maintained by ADT, known for its home burglar alarm systems, and use a high-speed wireless mesh network.

Clusters of video cameras transmit data to wireless radios, which then send it over a 1-gigabit back-haul feed to servers in the Port of Richmond's security office, and for the city to police headquarters and the dispatch center. Eventually, the video will be transmitted directly into Richmond police patrol cars.

There are 34 Internet Protocol cameras monitoring high-crime areas of Richmond, which has a population of nearly 101,000, covers 56 square miles, and is located about 15 miles northeast of San Francisco. The price tag for that installation is about $1.8 million. It is expected to be completed next month.

At the Port of Richmond, there are 82 IP cameras monitoring the port's 15 square miles of perimeter and facilities, where the city runs five terminals and 10 more are privately owned. About 19 million short tons pass through the port every year, mostly noncontainerized liquids, dry bulk products, and automobiles, making it the third-largest volume of tonnage among California ports.

The cost for the port installation, $2.3 million, was paid for by a Department of Homeland Security grant. The project was completed in March.

ADT has other wireless video security systems in place, including in a Chicago suburb and on Long Island.

During a tour of the Port of Richmond officials showed off the two server racks, which include 73 terabytes of data storage. They also demonstrated how the system's analytic software works to alert security by automatically recognizing when it detects something suspicious.

For instance, the alarm--visual on the computer only at this point--will go off if someone walks into an area which is off limits or if someone leaves something behind in an area that is open.

"The analytics recognizes certain exceptions (to pre-established rules like) if somebody jumps the fence or is loitering," said Jeff Gutierrez, a national accounts manager for ADT, which also has contracts with the London Underground, the Sydney Opera House, and Chicago and New York suburbs among many others.

Eyes on the Port of Richmond: Click on the image above to watch a video of the security setup in one of Northern California's busiest shipping areas.

Security officials monitoring the system can then see various camera angles of the area, follow someone with the cameras and zoom in or out. The cameras can display license plates as much as a mile away, he said.

In the line of site are large crude oil and jet fuel storage tanks, across the channel from the port's office, which Norman Chan, port administrator, said are vulnerable to attack.

The port cameras are not focused on private property now, but may be used for that in the future, he said.

"All the federal and state ports are working with the Department of Homeland Security to try to make our seaports safer, better secured and less vulnerable to acts of terrorism," said Jim Matzorkis, executive director of the port. The system "allows us to see what's happening in real-time" and it creates a deterrent.

While Richmond city and port officials were showing off their new systems, the city council in Washington, D.C., rejected funding for a video surveillance system there, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Real-time video surveillance raises privacy questions, such as who has access to the data and for what purpose, he said.

"You can pan into peoples' living rooms and bedrooms. Board operators are zooming in on attractive young women. It's not a pretty picture," Rotenberg said, adding that real-time surveillance also hasn't been proven to reduce crime.

There have been recent reports that surveillance cameras don't do much to deter crime and instead have been used to investigate minor things like littering and misuse of disabled parking passes.

The United Kingdom has the most surveillance cameras per capita in the world. With the recent news that CCTV cameras do not actually deter crime, how can the local town councils justify the massive surveillance program? By going after pooping dogs.

In a recent interview with The Guardian, the head of the Metropolitan Police's Visual Images Office explained the failings of CCTV:

"Billions of pounds has been spent on it, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It's been an utter fiasco: only 3 percent of crimes were solved by CCTV. There's no fear of CCTV. Why don't people fear it? (They think) the cameras are not working."

Conjuring up the bogeymen of terrorists, online pedophiles and cybercriminals, the U.K. passed a comprehensive surveillance law, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, in 2000. The law allows "the interception of communications, carrying out of surveillance, and the use of covert human intelligence sources" to help prevent crime, including terrorism.

Recent reports in the U.K. media indicate that the laws are being used for everything but terrorism investigations:

• Derby City Council, Bolton, Gateshead, and Hartlepool used surveillance to investigate dog fouling.
• Bolton Council also used the act to investigate littering.
• The London borough of Kensington and Chelsea conducted surveillance on the misuse of a disabled parking pass.
• Liverpool City Council used Ripa to identify a false claim for damages.
• Conwy Council used the law to spy on a person who was working while off sick.

Privacy activists were, unsurprisingly, up in arms. Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, told the BBC that "you don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, nor targeted surveillance to stop a litter bug." Liberty and other groups have called for a complete review of the law and its unplanned uses.

Is this surprising? Not really. Just as we've seen in the U.S., once law enforcement and intelligence agencies are given new unchecked powers, abuse tends to happen. The more secretive and unchecked the powers, the more widespread the abuse. (See: Warrantless wiretapping, detainee torture, COINTELPRO, The CIA's Operation Chaos.)

Republican politicians in the U.S. House of Representatives failed last month to persuade Democratic leaders to back a spy law rewrite that would immunize telecommunications companies that cooperated with allegedly illegal government spying. Now they're trying to force the issue.

On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition, which they characterized as a "rare step." If they obtain 218 signatures from their colleagues, they say the Democratic leadership will be forced to schedule a vote on a version of the bill passed by the U.S. Senate in February that would likely wipe out pending lawsuits against AT&T and other phone companies accused of illegal cooperation with the National Security Agency.

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.

Blunt was referring to the House's decision to let a temporary expansion of the spy law known as the Protect America Act, which Congress passed hurriedly last summer, lapse. The House did, however, go on to narrowly approve a rewrite of electronic surveillance law last month that lacked controversial legal protections for telecommunications companies that cooperated with allegedly illegal government spying.

Since then, the proposed revamp of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) hasn't gone anywhere, and the political back-and-forth has died down somewhat. Meanwhile, President Bush has threatened repeatedly to veto any measure without so-called "retroactive immunity" for phone companies. In the past, Republicans have argued that if the House Democrats called up their preferred bill, it would easily pass.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) dismissed the Republicans' petition as a "purely political move" and urged members not to sign it.

"Discussions on FISA are ongoing, and we hope to reach a compromise before Memorial Day," she told CNET News.com.

At a wide-ranging House hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller again urged passage of a bill that includes immunity for phone companies, arguing that "uncertainty" among the carriers "affects our ability to get info as fast and as quickly as we would want." He admitted, however, that he was not aware of any wiretap requests being denied because of Congress' inaction.

Google is now the first of the major search engines and e-mail providers to make a firm statement on the issue of the National Security Agency's wholesale surveillance of Internet content.

Google has stated it didn't help the NSA search your e-mails. More specifically the company denies participating in the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program. But the company's carefully worded denial might not be enough to reassure savvy readers.

The Wall Street Journal recently revealed the true extent of the NSA's surveillance system:

"According to current and former intelligence officials, the spy agency now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic e-mails and Internet searches."

This builds on what we learned the previous week, when The Washington Post revealed that the primary motivation for the White House's wiretapping immunity demands is to protect those firms that assisted with illegal, mass-scale surveillance of e-mail traffic.

Google has now taken the interesting step to become the first major Internet company to deny helping the NSA. In an on-the-record e-mail with a company spokesperson on Friday, I was told that:

"Google was not part of the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program."

Is that enough to reassure you?

If Google was obligated to give up search/e-mail records, it is likely that this request would be made via a Patriot Act authorized National Security Letter. A recent Journalarticle confirmed as much, stating that the information gained from National Security letters ended up in the gigantic NSA databases. But recipients of those letters may not be allowed to tell anyone about it, and may in fact be forced to lie.

The owner of an ISP who received one of these secret orders explained the significant restrictions placed upon him in a letter to The Washington Post back in 2007.

Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case--including the mere fact that I received an NSL--from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

If this poor gentleman had to lie to his girlfriend and family, it's possible that Google, if it did receive a FBI National Security Letter, might be placed in a similar position.

Careful wording
My original question to Google was, "Is Google sharing 'huge volumes' of search records with the government?" I never asked about the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program specifically.

As Salon's Glenn Greenwald has explained, the Bush administration has been very careful with its use of the term "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Many snooping activities, some of which were clearly illegal, do not come under this definition. Simply put, Google could have handed over a copy of every search request and every e-mail sent by a Gmail user to the U.S. government and it would still be able to quite correctly deny participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

In any case, on January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that the Terrorist Surveillance Program would not be reauthorized by the president, but would be subjected to quasi-judicial oversight. So the Terrorist Surveillance Program, at least by that name, no longer exists, and Google could be actively handing over millions of e-mails, while the statement made by its PR people would be completely true.

What if Google's PR people are telling the truth? What if Google really didn't help the NSA, and that the spooks are collecting millions of search records via wiretaps placed on the Internet backbone?

It's worth pointing out that Google has stood up to the feds when they demanded search records a couple years back--but this was the DOJ, not the NSA.

The problem remains that Google is not doing a single thing to protect its customers from this kind of large-scale surveillance. While the company supports SSL-encrypted Webmail sessions, it does little to advertise it, and has taken no steps to turn it on by default.

However, the biggest problem is search. Google offers no way for its customers to search the Internet without an evil ISP (such as AT&T) from snooping in on the traffic. Google could very easily enable SSL search sessions, but has not taken any steps to do so.

When asked about the webmail security problem, and which steps customers should take to protect their search traffic from snooping Internet service providers, Google's spokesperson directed me to the company's much ridiculed YouTube Privacy channel.

I spent a few minutes browsing through the channel, but couldn't find any specific advice on protecting myself from illegal wiretaps and government surveillance. YouTube seems to be a great place to find videos of skateboarding dogs, but not such a great source of privacy tips.

For those of you who care more about your privacy than cute YouTube videos, I highly recommend the Tor anonymous web proxy, as well as the Customize Google Firefox browser extension.

After convening its first "secret" session in 25 years, the U.S. House of Representatives is preparing anew to vote Friday on a contentious rewrite of electronic surveillance law.

Democratic leaders had originally thought they might get to a vote on the bill late Thursday, but a last-minute request from Republican leaders for a closed session of the House delayed those plans. Congress is scheduled to go into a two-week recess after its Friday vote.

In a closed session--only six of which have been held since 1825--only those politicians who swear to an oath of secrecy are allowed onto the House floor. In this case, Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) called for the extraordinary step in order to let a broader swath of politicians hear classified intelligence information he asserted was key to deciding which way to vote. (Normally, only certain members of the intelligence committee are privy to such information.)

The bill they're preparing to consider, an update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is opposed by the Bush administration, Republicans, and some conservative Democrats in large part because it would not grant retroactive immunity to telephone companies sued on allegations of unlawfully opening their networks to the National Security Agency. Democrats contend there's no evidence, classified or otherwise, that such legal protections are necessary.

After the session ended around midnight, both sides appeared as galvanized in their positions as ever.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he heard nothing new that would dissuade him from urging the House to support the bill that Democrats have drafted. Blunt, for his part, said the "constructive session" offered "powerful reasons" why the House should instead support a U.S. Senate version, favored by President Bush, which does supply retroactive immunity.

An hour of debate was scheduled to begin late Friday morning, with votes expected to wrap up during the early afternoon. Even if the Democrats succeed in getting their bill passed, however, the legislation would have to be reconciled with the Senate's version. President Bush has promised to veto anything lacking retroactive immunity.

Before Congress departs for its spring recess at week's end, the U.S. House of Representatives is trying to squeeze in a vote on what's shaping up as one of the most contentious bills this year.

That proposal, of course, is a Democratic bill that would make a number of changes to electronic surveillance law--but, much to the Bush administration's chagrin, would not grant retroactive immunity to telephone companies embroiled in some 40 lawsuits accusing them of unlawfully opening their networks to National Security Agency spies. In that regard, it's starkly different from the U.S. Senate version of the bill, which the White House supports.

For all of you following the debate at home, here's a copy of the 120-page text (PDF).

The House could consider it later on Thursday (right now, they're in the throes of federal budget debate) or on Friday. (If all else fails, the House is scheduled to be back in town on March 31.) The House Rules Committee has provided for an hour of debate, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, and no new amendments will be permitted.

Beyond the much-publicized lack of retroactive immunity, the new House bill and the approved Senate bill actually share some of the same language. For example, they both require an individualized court order for wiretapping conversations of Americans who are believed to be outside the country but represent foreign powers or terrorist groups.

But the House bill would also:

• Force the attorney general and intelligence officials to get the secret FISA court to sign off on its eavesdropping procedures before wiretaps begin. The Senate bill would allow them to wait up to five days after surveillance has begun before submitting those plans. (In emergency situations, the House bill allows the government a seven-day cushion before submitting those plans.)

•: Call for extra reviews of the president's warrantless wiretapping program. The inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency would have to report on how the once-secret, once-warrantless program operated. The bill would also create a "Commission on Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Activities," composed of nine congressionally appointed members, to conduct its own examination.

• Require courts hearing lawsuits alleging unlawful spying to consider all information, even if it has been alleged to expose "state secrets." The bill says courts "shall" review such briefings and arguments--taking any necessary steps to protect classified information--to determine whether telecommunications companies complied lawfully with eavesdropping requests.

Whether it'll become law is far from certain. President Bush on Thursday warned again that the bill is "unwise" and would surely get his veto.

Update at 2:44 p.m. PDT: There's a new twist in the FISA schedule. Upon request from Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has agreed to convene a rare "secret" session, in which politicians meet behind closed doors on the House floor to debate the bill. (Republican leaders apparently requested the procedural move because they believe there are elements of the proposal that shouldn't be discussed in public.) A Hoyer aide said the hour-long session will likely begin around 8:30 p.m. EDT. As of press time, no final decision had been made on whether the bill vote will occur after the Thursday night meeting or on Friday.