From the “don’t trust but verify” department comes the revelation that the Obama administration went into COP15 negotiation with spy help.
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency monitored the communications of other governments ahead of and during the 2009 United Nations climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, according to the latest document from whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The document, with portions marked “top secret,” indicates that the NSA was monitoring the communications of other countries ahead of the conference, and intended to continue doing so throughout the meeting. Posted on an internal NSA website on Dec. 7, 2009, the first day of the Copenhagen summit, it states that
“Analysts here at NSA, as well as our Second Party partners, will continue to provide policymakers with unique, timely, and valuable insights into key countries’ preparations and goals for the conference, as well as the deliberations within countries on climate change policies and negotiation strategies.”
“Second Party partners” refers to the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with which the U.S. has an intelligence-sharing relationship. “While the outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference remains uncertain, signals intelligence will undoubtedly play a significant role in keeping our negotiators as well informed as possible throughout the 2-week event,” the document says.
The Huffington Post published the documents Wednesday night in coordination with the Danish daily newspaper Information, which worked with American journalist Laura Poitras.
Read the full document here.(PDF)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/snowden-nsa-surveillance-_n_4681362.html
h/t to WUWT reader MichaelWiseGuy
Edward Snowden is now the most protected man on the planet. In the event of his unfortunate untimely death, there is an insurance file containing hundreds of thousands of top secrete documents that will be unleashed on the world all at once. Those documents contain all the most pertinent secrets of all the ruling class and oligarchs controlling the world and how they do it. Everything that can be known will be known by the people of the world, and there will be no more secrets that are used to enslave us. The most powerful oligarchs cannot let that happen, therefore they must keep E.J. Snowden alive at all costs.
For those who believe the NSA is doing nothing wrong and Snowden is a traitor to his country, please answer a question: Why did President Obama feel it necessary this month to announce reforms in the way the NSA uses the information it collects on Americans? Why make any changes at all based on what Snowden revealed if the NSA is doing nothing wrong? Keep in mind that the President has claimed that even he was not aware of some of the NSA’s activities. If that is true, it would mean that the NSA engaged in activities that even their boss, the President, didn’t know about or approve of. How is that constitutional? He still wouldn’t know about it if it wasn’t for Snowden! I’m sorry, but i just don’t think you can have a “government of the people” when the people are kept entirely out of the loop by their government.
So what did they learn?
Tom in Florida:
Many thanks for your clear, informative and succinct answer to my questions that you provide at January 30, 2014 at 11:58 am.
That is very helpful. I was confused concerning what was being said because I thought we were discussing the Copenhagen issue, and I could not understand how any country could have a law against that. Thankyou.
Richard
DirkH @ur momisugly 9:32am. “A cultural thing called Taqqiyah.”
That’s a Shia cultural thing. Maldives is Sunni.
I just got back from Maldives after visiting family (wife is Maldivian). The majority of Maldivians simply accept the “fact” of global warming and sea level rise because that is what they have been told via local media fro so long. Not very surprising and just like western countries really. I enjoyed myself informing friends and family of the reality of the situation. The political reality is that the Maldivian government has done well out of aid as an under-developed country (I believe they lost that status about 5 – 10 y ago) and now as a developing nation. They are a very bright people (all the tuna, bananas and water my wife says) and will happily take money being offered (there appear to be very few strings other than “good” relations).
richardscourtney says:
January 30, 2014 at 1:08 am
============
Sorry for the delay.
It seems you are not really listening.
That’s ok, it keeps the thread running.
There are professionals working 24/7, they don’t (yet) need to worry about laws.
After about 14 hours I still see “Copehagen” in the heading.
Ian
[No you don’t. 8<) Mod. ]
Bombshell, really? Have you had your head in the sand about NSA oppression?
Higher up, I gave this URL for a range of accessories that no information-seeking enthusiast should be without.
http://www.epicos.com/EPCompanyProfileWeb/Products.aspx?id=738
These are really high-performance pieces of gear that cast a new light on intercepts.
My problem is that I have not tried one, or seen an evaluation. (I’m not involved in any marketing and have no gain to make).
Question though – has anyone here become familiar enough with any of these devices to say if they work in action as well as they seem to on paper? I would not like to spread false information on this blog if, for example, the URL was a front for a spoof or a way for authorities to track down dissidents.
The whole issue of interception of media takes on a rather different appearance if a lot of people have invested in such gear and used it widely. What we thought before was near-impossible might by now be routine.
u.k.(us):
OK. You have done it again. In response to my request for explanation of an “arcane” post from you at January 30, 2014 at 5:18 pm you have answered by saying in total
I am “not really listening” to what?
And Tom in Florida explained to me at January 30, 2014 at 11:58 am that the “professionals” DO “need to worry about laws”. Are you saying he is wrong?
Or is your opaque reply to my request for clarity your attempt to pretend you have a clue?
Richard
I am glad that this was posted. Many do not understand that the NSA has the capacity to intercept any telephone communication in the U.S. They can quickly plug into any telephone in the country. This capacity was installed as a part of the post 9-11 reaction. The massive corruption that exists in this country means that certain intercepts are available to “friends” of the administration, done at their behest. No one is safe from such practices. Do you say ho-hum? Then you must be ignorant of what’s at stake.
WE need more Snowden types in government.
mpainter says: @ur momisugly January 31, 2014 at 7:50 am
…Many do not understand that the NSA has the capacity to intercept any telephone communication in the U.S. They can quickly plug into any telephone in the country. This capacity was installed as a part of the post 9-11 reaction. The massive corruption that exists in this country means that certain intercepts are available to “friends” of the administration, done at their behest. No one is safe from such practices. Do you say ho-hum? Then you must be ignorant of what’s at stake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Makes you wonder who Ambassador Stevens (Benghazi) might have ticked-off.
Stevens was an international trade lawyer based in Washington, D.C before joining the United States Foreign Service in 1991. Stevens served as Director of the Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs.
Two areas that allow someone to get in to a deep swamp full of alligators.
> “Second Party partners” refers to the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with which the U.S. has an intelligence-sharing relationship.
Why don’t you call them by their real name – ECHELON?
Casper:
re your post at January 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm.
I understand your pun but – as I am sure you know – the Echelon is not officially acknowledged to exist.
However, the purpose of “Secondary Partners” is important for the reason that Tom in Florida explained at January 30, 2014 at 11:58 am.
The NSA is forbidden by US Law to conduct surveillance on internal US communications, but GCHQ (being British) is not. However, the UK is a US Secondary Partner and, therefore, the UK and US have agreement to exchange information.
So,GCHQ conducts surveillance on internal US communications for the NSA.
While the NSA conducts surveillance on internal UK communications for GCHQ.
And they exchange information. This provides the added benefit of close cooperation.
These arrangements are not secret.
This emphasises the need for the public to be properly aware of these issues. And it demonstrates the great importance of the conclusion to my comment at January 30, 2014 at 5:51 am; i.e.
Unfortunately, recognition of that need to “hold politicians to account” is hidden from fools who live in a world of their imagining which is so divorced from political reality that they think Security Agencies can be disbanded, that anyone they don’t like is a “socialist”, that “H1tler was left wing”, and similar surreal bollocks.
Richard
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly January 31, 2014 at 3:09 pm
… that “H1tler was left wing”, and similar surreal bollocks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard how about we just call him what he was, a totalitarian monster and be done with it.
Politicians all lie and they all want power especially when you get high up in the ranks. As far as I am concerned there is not all that much difference between the lot of them no matter what they call themselves. Just some of them do a heck of a lot more damage than others and some of them are crazier than others. Every once in a while we luck out and get a ‘Protector’ instead of a ‘Predator’ or a ‘Parasite’ but the last two are the run the mill politicians.
Had NSA been the only ‘with ears to the ground’ than it might have been a thing to discuss. Reality is that NSA wasn’t the only by far, nor the worst. Disinformation is and always been disinformation. In this question as well as in the so called ‘climate question’ as well as in every other question rised where Aim and Consequence shines thru
Gail Combs:
Thanks for your post at January 31, 2014 at 4:17 pm in response to my post at January 31, 2014 at 3:09 pm.
Yes, I strongly agree with you when you say
Indeed, you can check this thread and see that I ignored most of the “surreal bollocks” presented by the naive and stupid.
The point in my post which you replied was that those who concentrate on promoting their naive stupidity are blinded to the important reality and the REAL NEED which I again state to be
Burying one’s head in the sand and pretending reality is other than it is gives politicians free rein to use Security Services for their own ends.
A trusted minority of politicians is needed to oversee the Security Services.
The bulk of politicians is needed to oversee that trusted minority.
And we need to hold the politicians to account.
Richard
Gail Combs:
This is an additional response to your post at January 31, 2014 at 4:17 pm because I did not want to dilute my direct answer to your post.
I am addressing this to you because you are an American of the political right who displays clear knowledge and understanding of such things, and I am asking a genuine question and not seeking some propagandist clap-trap.
My post you answered stated how the agreement to share security information between the NSA and GCHQ enables monitoring of US Citizens on behalf of US Government when – as Tom From Florida explained – US Law forbids US Government to conduct such monitoring.
There is no difference in practical terms between the NSA or GCHQ doing the monitoring. But, nobody has responded to this although Americans often claim they care about their written Constitution.
This is puzzling. It suggests that Americans care about the letter of the Law but not the purpose of the Law. Or is there some other explanation. Perhaps Americans see the need for the monitoring but want the Law which forbids it and – if so – how do they ‘square this circle’? If they do see the need but think the Law is important for other reasons then why don’t they campaign for improved laws to oversee surveillance. Or …
I would appreciate your insights about this puzzling situation.
Richard
richardscourtney: You misunderstand the relationship between GCHQ and the NSA. What you suggest they are doing would still be a violation of Executive Order 12333, which sets out the limitations of intelligence gathering by US agencies. You can read the order in its entirety here.
To quote just a bit of it, Section 2.3(b) states “Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons”
Translated, that means only the FBI can perform intelligence gathering within the US, but if it needs help, the other agencies can pitch in as long as they’re not gathering information on US citizens. This also covers your alleged use of GCHQ to gather information on US citizens within the US and then sharing it with NSA. It’s not allowed, it’s specifically forbidden, and it is the FBI’s function to do so. This phrase appears twice in EO1233, specifically when information gathering within the US is mentioned. The FBI is specified as the only legitimate intelligence-gathering agency within the US. The other agencies are forbidden unless specifically authorized, and then only if the action is NOT against US citizens.
Your conundrum is easily solved by realizing that the GCHQ/NSA mutual spyfest just isn’t so. “We didn’t do it, they did, and just told us what they had,” would not fly as an excuse to do otherwise.
James Schrumpf:
Thankyou for your information to me at February 1, 2014 at 6:26 am.
Firstly, I have not studied the long documentation you link and lack incentive to do so, but the Executive Order EO1233 which you cite is not as clear as you claim.
As you say, Section 2.3(b) states
This clearly states that it considers “Collection within the United States of”
(a) foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable
and
(b) the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons.
Only the FBI may conduct such “Collection within the United States” EXCEPT THAT for (a) “other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community” may do such collection.
GCHQ and the NSA do share information. Indeed, they share and exchange staff.
This close interaction has resulted in the ‘Angry Birds’ scandal
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/world/spy-agencies-scour-phone-apps-for-personal-data.html?_r=0
Indeed, this GCHQ monitoring of US citizens with provision of the gleaned information to the NSA has induced the US President to alter rules governing the NSA as a result of the ‘Angry Birds’ scandal
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/us/politics/obama-nsa.html
So, GCHG obtains information by monitoring communications in the USA for the purpose of obtaining information on “foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable”. And GCHQ shares that information with the NSA. By its nature that information is monitoring of “the domestic activities of United States persons”, but – and importantly – that activity does not have the PURPOSE of acquiring INFORMATION CONCERNING THE DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES of United States persons.
So, there seems to be no breach of the Executive Order which you quote. And your claim that the NSA-GCHQ collaboration does not exist is clearly not true.
And that brings me back to my question which prompted your post to me; viz.
One could dispute my use of the word “nobody” because the US President has tried to clamp down on it. However, my use of that word was intended to mean “nobody in this thread”. And that intended use remains true because your response to pointing it out is to pretend that the monitoring does not happen: it does, it is no secret, and the US President has expressed concern at it.
Your response adds emphasis to my repeated statements in this thread saying
Burying one’s head in the sand and pretending reality is other than it is gives politicians free rein to use Security Services for their own ends.
A trusted minority of politicians is needed to oversee the Security Services.
The bulk of politicians is needed to oversee that trusted minority.
And we need to hold the politicians to account.
Richard
Richard,
I must have misstated what I meant to say. The NSA and GCHQ certainly do share information. The US shares information with many foreign intelligence agencies. What I meant to say is that they don’t use each other to spy on their countrymen.
I think you also misread Section 2.3(b) of EO12333. It states that “no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons.” That means that if the FBI requests help from the IC, that help may not include intelligence-gathering on US citizens. From what I’ve read of the “Angry Birds” kerfuffle, the articles state that GCHQ and the NSA are using them, but nowhere did I see that GCHQ was collecting Americans’ data for the NSA and vice versa.
What makes me wonder about the credulity of the media and some people is that Snowden lied to get his job, cheated on the test he had to pass to get his accesses, and fled to Russia… and people believe what he says and that his documents are real. It boggles the mind. Makes me think of the old adage, if you marry a woman who cheated on her husband with you, you’ve married a woman who cheats on her husband.
Richard,
I did miss another point from your last post. You stated that sharing the “Angry Birds” info with GCHQ “does not have the PURPOSE of acquiring INFORMATION CONCERNING THE DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES of United States persons.”
Well, yes it does, and would not pass muster under EO12333. But since I’ve read nowhere that they were sharing that particular information, I presume that you are only assuming they do, along with all the other intelligence data. You’d be better off making the argument that they are not targeting particular American citizens with this type of intelligence gathering, which is more to the point. Collecting metadata from cell phone usage is certainly not targeted, but is gathering information on American citizens.
But you know, every on of those smartphone apps has a disclaimer explaining exactly what information about you is going to be shared. One always has the choice to just not use it if you don’t like what will be recorded.
JamesS:
Sincere thanks for your two further replies to me at February 1, 2014 at 8:54 am and February 1, 2014 at 9:03 am. As a result of your response the thread at last seems to be assessing serious issues.
Firstly, I agree with you that Snowden did wrong, very wrong. But I do not see the relevance of that to our discussion except that information he released is the subject of our discussion. We are discussing the importance and use of the released information but not its release (although that certainly is worthy of discussion).
Secondly, I am not “assuming” anything. I am taking at face value the media reports including the NYT article which I linked. Here is that link again
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/world/spy-agencies-scour-phone-apps-for-personal-data.html?_r=0
You say
Hmmm. Metadata? “Not targetted”? Perhaps.
The NYT article I linked includes this
Why access “address books, buddy lists, telephone logs and the geographic data embedded in photographs”? And if the information suggests e.g. links to a known terrorist would the NSA and GCHQ not investigate that?
What if some of the gathered information is from a suspected terrorist? Would the analysis of gathered information not analyse to support or refute that suggestion?
Surely, such special attention does mean the information gathering is ‘targetted’ in the same way that a fishing net target for cod targets for cod by collecting everything and throwing away fish which are not cod or not large enough.
And if such special attention is not applied then the information has no use to a Security Agency.
You assert that the NSA accepting provision of the findings from GCHQ would breach the Executive Order. As I explained, I cannot understand how it would (but I am not a lawyer so it may). However, the stolen NSA documents say GCHQ did provide the NSA with information from their monitoring of “Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter and other Internet services”.
And you assert that the NSA would not do a quid pro quo for GCHQ. You may be right, but your assertion is improbable because we Brits are entitled to get something in return. And the improbability of your assertion is enhanced by GCHQ saying they have done nothing contrary to British Law.
Monitoring phone calls of a British Subject requires official approval (blanket approvals would be contrary to British Law). There is no British law against monitoring American phone calls, and there is no American law against monitoring British phone calls, so the quid pro quo seems very, very likely.
I fail to see the relevance of the disclaimer on smart phone apps.
Again, thankyou for your thoughts.
Richard
Richard,
The quid pro quo would not happen because the NSA or GCHQ using each other to gather otherwise prohibited information, and then trading it, would indeed be “targeted intelligence gathering against US citizens,” just as hiring a hit man to kill someone for you makes you guity of murder. Just put that thought out of your head.
What the intelligence agencies were trading, though, were methods and “recipes” for intelligence gathering. Nothing wrong with that, happens all the time. We still don’t know for certain that the “Angry Birds” thing has anything to it. Your taking at face value media reports and Snowden’s claims seems quite naive to me; personally I believe the person who has taken an oath to uphold American citizens’ rights during the execution of his duties over a proven liar and cheat.
The disclaimer on the smartphone apps is there to tell the user, “We’re going to take over access to these things on your phone, and by the way, track your location as well.” On my workstation in the office is a notice stating, “Use of this workstation constitutes consent to monitoring.” That’s essentially what the app is telling a prospective user, so whining about a lack of privacy afterwards is silly.
Good talking with you.
James