Entries Tagged "surveillance"

Page 27 of 95

Brennan Center Report on NSA Overseas Spying and Executive Order 12333

The Brennan Center has released a report on EO 12333, the executive order that regulates the NSA’s overseas surveillance. Much of what the NSA does here is secret and, even though the EO is designed for foreign surveillance, Americans are regularly swept up in the NSA’s collection operations:

Despite a series of significant disclosures, the scope of these operations, as well as critical detail about how they are regulated, remain secret. Nevertheless, an analysis of publicly available documents reveals several salient features of the EO 12333 regime:

  • Bulk collection of information: The NSA engages in bulk collection overseas—for example, gathering all of the telephone calls going into or out of certain countries. These programs include the data of Americans who are visiting those countries or communicating with their inhabitants. While recent executive branch reforms place some limits on how the government may use data collected in bulk, these limits do not apply to data that is collected in bulk and held for a temporary (but unspecified) period of time in order to facilitate “targeted” surveillance.
  • Treating subjects of discussion as “targets”: When the NSA conducts surveillance under EO 12333 that it characterizes as “targeted,” it is not limited to obtaining communications to or from particular individuals or groups, or even communications that refer to specified individuals or groups (such as e-mails that mention “ISIS”). Rather, the selection terms used by the NSA may include broad subjects, such as “Yemen” or “nuclear proliferation.”
  • Weak limits on the retention and sharing of information: Despite recent reforms, the NSA continues to exercise significant discretion over how long it may retain personal data gathered under EO 12333 and the circumstances under which it may share such information. While there is a default five-year limit on data retention, there is an extensive list of exceptions. Information sharing with law enforcement authorities threatens to undermine traditional procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings. Current policies disclosed by the government also lack specific procedures for mitigating the human rights risks of intelligence sharing with foreign governments, particularly regimes with a history of repressive and abusive conduct.
  • Systemic lack of meaningful oversight: Operations that are conducted solely under EO 12333 (i.e., those that are not subject to any statutory law) are not vetted or reviewed by any court. Members of the congressional intelligence committees have cited challenges in overseeing the NSA’s network of EO 12333 programs. While the Agency has argued that its privacy processes are robust, overreliance on internal safeguards fails to address the need for external and independent oversight. It also leaves Congress and the public without sufficient means to assess the risks and benefits of EO 12333 operations.

The report concludes with a list of major unanswered questions about EO 12333 and the array of surveillance activities conducted under its rules and policies. While many operational aspects of surveillance programs are necessarily secret, the NSA can and should share the laws and regulations that govern EO 12333 programs, significant interpretations of those legal authorities, and information about how EO 12333 operations are overseen both within the Executive Branch and by Congress. It should clarify internal definitions of terms such as “collection,” “targeted,” and “bulk” so that the scope of its operations is understandable rather than obscured. And it should provide more information on how its overseas operations impact Americans’ privacy, by releasing statistics on data collection and by specifying in greater detail the instances in which it shares information with other U.S. and foreign agencies and the relevant safeguards.

Here’s an article from the Intercept.

And this is me from Data and Goliath on EO 12333:

Executive Order 12333, the 1981 presidential document authorizing most of NSA’s surveillance, is incredibly permissive. It is supposed to primarily allow the NSA to conduct surveillance outside the US, but it gives the agency broad authority to collect data on Americans. It provides minimal protections for Americans; data collected outside the US, and even less for the hundreds of millions of innocent non-Americans whose data is incidentally collected. Because this is a presidential directive and not a law, courts have no jurisdiction, and congressional oversight is minimal. Additionally, at least in 2007, the president believed he could modify or ignore it at will and in secret. As a result, we know very little about how Executive Order 12333 is being interpreted inside the NSA.

Posted on March 21, 2016 at 6:53 AM • View Comments

Possible Government Demand for WhatsApp Backdoor

The New York Times is reporting that WhatsApp, and its parent company Facebook, may be headed to court over encrypted chat data that the FBI can’t decrypt.

This case is fundamentally different from the Apple iPhone case. In that case, the FBI is demanding that Apple create a hacking tool to exploit an already existing vulnerability in the iPhone 5c, because they want to get at stored data on a phone that they have in their possession. In the WhatsApp case, chat data is end-to-end encrypted, and there is nothing the company can do to assist the FBI in reading already encrypted messages. This case would be about forcing WhatsApp to make an engineering change in the security of its software to create a new vulnerability—one that they would be forced to push onto the user’s device to allow the FBI to eavesdrop on future communications. This is a much further reach for the FBI, but potentially a reasonable additional step if they win the Apple case.

And once the US demands this, other countries will demand it as well. Note that the government of Brazil has arrested a Facebook employee because WhatsApp is secure.

We live in scary times when our governments want us to reduce our own security.

EDITED TO ADD (3/15): More commentary.

Posted on March 15, 2016 at 6:17 AM • View Comments

More on the "Data as Exhaust" Metaphor

Research paper: Gavin J.D. Smith, “Surveillance, Data and Embodiment: On the Work of Being Watched,” Body and Society, January 2016.

Abstract: Today’s bodies are akin to ‘walking sensor platforms’. Bodies either host, or are the subjects of, an array of sensing devices that act to convert bodily movements, actions and dynamics into circulative data. This article proposes the notions of ‘disembodied exhaust’ and ’embodied exhaustion’ to conceptualise processes of bodily sensorisation and datafication. As the material body interfaces with networked sensor technologies and sensing infrastructures, it emits disembodied exhaust: gaseous flows of personal information that establish a representational data-proxy. It is this networked actant that progressively structures how embodied subjects experience their daily lives. The significance of this symbiont medium in determining the outcome of interplays between networked individuals and audiences necessitates that it is carefully contrived. The article explores the nature and function of the data-proxy, and its impact on social relations. Drawing on examples that depict individuals engaging with their data-proxies, the article suggests that managing a virtual presence is analogous to a work relation, demanding diligence and investment. But it also shows how the data-proxy operates as a mode of affect that challenges conventional distinctions made between organic and inorganic bodies, agency and actancy, mortality and immortality, presence and absence.

Posted on February 29, 2016 at 6:17 AM • View Comments

Thinking about Intimate Surveillance

Law Professor Karen Levy writes about the rise of surveillance in our most intimate activities—love, sex, romance—and how it affects those activities.

This article examines the rise of the surveillant paradigm within some of our most intimate relationships and behaviors—those relating to love, romance, and sexual activity—and considers what challenges this sort of data collection raises for privacy and the foundations of intimate life.

Data-gathering about intimate behavior was, not long ago, more commonly the purview of state public health authorities, which have routinely gathered personally identifiable information in the course of their efforts to (among other things) fight infectious disease. But new technical capabilities, social norms, and cultural frameworks are beginning to change the nature of intimate monitoring practices. Intimate surveillance is emerging and becoming normalized as primarily an interpersonal phenomenon, one in which all sorts of people engage, for all sorts of reasons. The goal is not top-down management of populations, but establishing knowledge about (and, ostensibly, concomitant control over) one’s own intimate relations and activities.

After briefly describing some scope conditions on this inquiry, I survey several types of monitoring technologies used across the “life course” of an intimate relationship—from dating to sex and romance, from fertility to fidelity, to abuse. I then examine the relationship between data collection, values, and privacy, and close with a few words about the uncertain role of law and policy in the sphere of intimate surveillance.

Posted on February 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM • View Comments

Eavesdropping by the Foscam Security Camera

Brian Krebs has a really weird story about the built-in eavesdropping by the Chinese-made Foscam security camera:

Imagine buying an internet-enabled surveillance camera, network attached storage device, or home automation gizmo, only to find that it secretly and constantly phones home to a vast peer-to-peer (P2P) network run by the Chinese manufacturer of the hardware. Now imagine that the geek gear you bought doesn’t actually let you block this P2P communication without some serious networking expertise or hardware surgery that few users would attempt.

Posted on February 24, 2016 at 12:05 PM • View Comments

Research on Balancing Privacy with Surveillance

Interesting research: Michael Kearns, Aaron Roth, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Grigory Yaroslavtsev, “Private algorithms for the protected in social network search,” PNAS, Jan 2016:

Abstract: Motivated by tensions between data privacy for individual citizens and societal priorities such as counterterrorism and the containment of infectious disease, we introduce a computational model that distinguishes between parties for whom privacy is explicitly protected, and those for whom it is not (the targeted subpopulation). The goal is the development of algorithms that can effectively identify and take action upon members of the targeted subpopulation in a way that minimally compromises the privacy of the protected, while simultaneously limiting the expense of distinguishing members of the two groups via costly mechanisms such as surveillance, background checks, or medical testing. Within this framework, we provide provably privacy-preserving algorithms for targeted search in social networks. These algorithms are natural variants of common graph search methods, and ensure privacy for the protected by the careful injection of noise in the prioritization of potential targets. We validate the utility of our algorithms with extensive computational experiments on two large-scale social network datasets.

Posted on February 24, 2016 at 6:05 AM • View Comments

Security vs. Surveillance

Both the “going dark” metaphor of FBI Director James Comey and the contrasting “golden age of surveillance” metaphor of privacy law professor Peter Swire focus on the value of data to law enforcement. As framed in the media, encryption debates are about whether law enforcement should have surreptitious access to data, or whether companies should be allowed to provide strong encryption to their customers.

It’s a myopic framing that focuses only on one threat—criminals, including domestic terrorists—and the demands of law enforcement and national intelligence. This obscures the most important aspects of the encryption issue: the security it provides against a much wider variety of threats.

Encryption secures our data and communications against eavesdroppers like criminals, foreign governments, and terrorists. We use it every day to hide our cell phone conversations from eavesdroppers, and to hide our Internet purchasing from credit card thieves. Dissidents in China and many other countries use it to avoid arrest. It’s a vital tool for journalists to communicate with their sources, for NGOs to protect their work in repressive countries, and for attorneys to communicate with their clients.

Many technological security failures of today can be traced to failures of encryption. In 2014 and 2015, unnamed hackers—probably the Chinese government—stole 21.5 million personal files of U.S. government employees and others. They wouldn’t have obtained this data if it had been encrypted. Many large-scale criminal data thefts were made either easier or more damaging because data wasn’t encrypted: Target, TJ Maxx, Heartland Payment Systems, and so on. Many countries are eavesdropping on the unencrypted communications of their own citizens, looking for dissidents and other voices they want to silence.

Adding backdoors will only exacerbate the risks. As technologists, we can’t build an access system that only works for people of a certain citizenship, or with a particular morality, or only in the presence of a specified legal document. If the FBI can eavesdrop on your text messages or get at your computer’s hard drive, so can other governments. So can criminals. So can terrorists. This is not theoretical; again and again, backdoor accesses built for one purpose have been surreptitiously used for another. Vodafone built backdoor access into Greece’s cell phone network for the Greek government; it was used against the Greek government in 2004-2005. Google kept a database of backdoor accesses provided to the U.S. government under CALEA; the Chinese breached that database in 2009.

We’re not being asked to choose between security and privacy. We’re being asked to choose between less security and more security.

This trade-off isn’t new. In the mid-1990s, cryptographers argued that escrowing encryption keys with central authorities would weaken security. In 2013, cybersecurity researcher Susan Landau published her excellent book Surveillance or Security?, which deftly parsed the details of this trade-off and concluded that security is far more important.

Ubiquitous encryption protects us much more from bulk surveillance than from targeted surveillance. For a variety of technical reasons, computer security is extraordinarily weak. If a sufficiently skilled, funded, and motivated attacker wants in to your computer, they’re in. If they’re not, it’s because you’re not high enough on their priority list to bother with. Widespread encryption forces the listener—whether a foreign government, criminal, or terrorist—to target. And this hurts repressive governments much more than it hurts terrorists and criminals.

Of course, criminals and terrorists have used, are using, and will use encryption to hide their planning from the authorities, just as they will use many aspects of society’s capabilities and infrastructure: cars, restaurants, telecommunications. In general, we recognize that such things can be used by both honest and dishonest people. Society thrives nonetheless because the honest so outnumber the dishonest. Compare this with the tactic of secretly poisoning all the food at a restaurant. Yes, we might get lucky and poison a terrorist before he strikes, but we’ll harm all the innocent customers in the process. Weakening encryption for everyone is harmful in exactly the same way.

This essay previously appeared as part of the paper “Don’t Panic: Making Progress on the ‘Going Dark’ Debate.” It was reprinted on Lawfare. A modified version was reprinted by the MIT Technology Review.

Posted on February 3, 2016 at 6:09 AM • View Comments

1 … 25 26 27 28 29 … 95

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.