Berlin – Er ist bekennender Freimaurer, Sympathisant der Hacker-Gruppe „Anonymous“ – und er hat den Licht-Anschlag auf die US-Botschaft in Berlin für „Kim Dotcom“ verübt.

Oliver Bienkowski (31), Chef einer Düsseldorfer Guerilla-Werbeagentur, projizierte den Schriftzug „United Stasi of America“ auf das Botschaftsgebäude. Für die Aktion brauchte er mehrere Wochen Vorbereitung, dazu drei Tage lang in der Hauptstadt, um sich den Ort anzuschauen.

Sonntagnacht schlägt er zu: Plötzlich blitzt gegenüber dem Berliner Holocaust-Mahnmal die Licht-Botschaft auf. Darunter ein Bild von Internet-Betrüger Kim Schmitz (39), alias „Kim Dotcom“.

► Die Licht-Parole auf der US-Botschaft soll ein Protest gegen die Abhör-Aktivitäten der USA sein. Und weil Bienkowski ein Fan von „Kim Dotcom“ ist, schrieb er ihm per Mail von der Idee. Bienkowski zu BILD.de: „Er hat gesagt, dass wir sein Bild benutzen dürfen. Der Slogan stammt von ihm.“ Hacker „Kim Dotcom“ lebt in Neuseeland und betrieb dort die illegale Daten-Tauschbörse „Megaupload“.

Der Licht-Anschlag kostete 5000 Euro, inklusive digitalem Beamer. Bienkowski hat alles aus eigener Tasche bezahlt. Auf YouTube stellte der Künstler ein Video der Aktion ein.

Schließlich wurde er von der Polizei verjagt, eine Anzeige fürchtet der Lichtmaler, wie er sich nennt, aber nicht. Für die Grünen strahlte er bereits das Kanzleramt an, beim „Festival of Lights“ zauberte er einen Regenbogen aufs Brandenburger Tor.

„Kim Dotcom“ freute sich seinerseits über die Aufmerksamkeit und postete den ersten BILD-Artikel bei Twitter.

Ein Sprecher der US-Botschaft über die Aktion: „Sehr lustig, aber wer so einen Vergleich anstellt, kennt weder die Stasi noch Amerika.“

08.07.2013 – 18:09 Uhr
Von SOLVEIG RATHENOW

Find this story at 8 July 2013

© BILD.de

Das Spionagewerkzeug XKeyscore, das NSA und BND einsetzen, hat viele Fans – auch in privaten US-Unternehmen. In Stellenanzeigen suchen die Firmen ganz offen nach Fachleuten für diverse NSA-Programme. Wichtige Einstellungsbedingung: ein bestandener Lügendetektortest.

Washington/Fort Meade – Die National Security Agency ist eine gewaltige Behörde. Der “Washington Post” zufolge arbeiten derzeit etwa 33.000 Menschen für den US-Geheimdienst, der auf Spionage, Verteidigung und Angriff in Netzwerken spezialisiert ist. Die NSA unterhält nicht nur eine riesige Zentrale in Fort Meade, Maryland, sondern auch noch zahlreiche Stützpunkte in den USA und anderswo. Im britischen Menwith Hill sollen demnächst bis zu 2500 NSA-Bedienstete arbeiten. In Bluffdale, Utah, baut der Geheimdienst derzeit das vermutlich größte Rechenzentrum des Planeten.

Doch all diese Einrichtungen sind nur ein Teil des tatsächlichen Geheimdienstapparats – andere Teile der US-Sicherheitsarchitektur sind längst outgesourct. In einem großangelegten Bericht über diese Schattenbranche schätzte die “Washington Post” schon 2010, dass von 854.000 Personen mit der Sicherheitsfreigabe “Top Secret” 265.000 Vertragsangestellte von Privatunternehmen waren.

Noch immer suchen sowohl die NSA als auch die knapp 500 privaten Firmen, mit denen sie zusammenarbeitet, ganz offen nach weiterem Fachpersonal für Überwachung, Spionage und Cyberwar. Eine ganze Reihe von Stellenanzeigen der NSA selbst für Positionen etwa im Bereich Computer Network Operations beginnt jeweils mit der gleichen, erstaunlich offenen Passage:

“Unsere Nation ist in eine neue Ära eingetreten, die tiefgreifende Veränderungen hinsichtlich der Operationsweise der National Security Agency mit sich bringt. Die explosive Ausbreitung des World Wide Web verlangt nach einer Mission im Bereich Computer Network Operations. Diese wichtige Mission besteht aus drei Teilen: Netzwerkverteidigung, Netzwerkattacken und Erschließung von Computernetzwerken. Um diese Funktionen zu erfüllen, sucht die NSA Menschen, die mit hoher Sachkunde und Leidenschaft den Krieg im Cyberspace gewinnen wollen.”

Dass der Geheimdienst den “Krieg im Cyberspace” als gegeben betrachtet, lässt tief blicken. Die NSA verschickt solche Stellenanzeigen sogar über einen eigenen Twitteraccount.

Doch die NSA selbst ist bei weitem nicht die einzige Organisation, die in Online-Stellenanzeigen freimütig mit dem eigenen Bedarf an Arbeitskräften hausieren geht. Eine ganze Reihe von Unternehmen sucht beispielsweise Analysten, Techiker, Programmierer, die mit dem als streng geheim eingestuften System XKeyscore umgehen können, das SPIEGEL-Informationen zufolge auch der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) und der Verfassungsschutz (BVF) einsetzen.

Doch nicht nur nach Fachleuten im Umgang mit dieser NSA-Software wird gesucht. In zahlreichen Stellenanzeigen tauchen Programmnamen auf, die man von den bislang publizierten NSA-Folien – etwa über das Prism-Programm – kennt. Andere stehen auf einer Liste mit NSA-Programmnamen, die der Geheimdienst-Fachmann William Arkin schon im März 2012 veröffentlichte.

Einige Beispiele:

Der Rüstungskonzern L3 Communications (nicht zu verwechseln mit dem Telekommunikationskonzern Level 3 Communications) sucht für seine Sicherheitssparte einen Systems Integration Engineer am Standort Maryland / Fort Meade – dort ist auch die NSA zu Hause. Mit Programmen wie XKeyscore sollte sich der Bewerber auskennen, vor allem mit dem Entwickeln von Zusatzprogrammen, sogenannten Plug-ins.
Als Netzwerk-Spezialist ist man gefragt bei Tasc. Die Firma mit mehreren tausend Mitarbeitern und laut “Washington Post” schon 2009 einem Jahresumsatz von zwei Milliarden Dollar bietet IT-Lösungen für Geheimdienste und Militär an. Mitbringen sollen Bewerber Kenntnisse von NSA-Programmen wie XKeyscore, Tuningfork, Discoroute oder Marina. Letzteres dient den Prism-Folien zufolge der Auswertung von Internetverbindungsdaten. Die potentiellen Mitarbeiter werden mit der Aussicht gelockt, “Schutz und Sicherheit zu verbessern und die Grundwerte der Gesellschaft zu schützen”.
Das Unternehmen CyTech sucht einen Analysten, der sich auf das Auswerten verschiedener Quellen versteht – mit NSA-Programmen wie Anchory/Maui, Pathfinder oder Skywriter. Pluspunkte sind Kenntnisse von Pinwale und XKeyscore. Pinwale ist ein Analyseprogramm für Video-Inhalte, das ebenfalls auf den Prism-Folien auftaucht.

Die Liste ließe sich fortsetzen: Auch andere einschlägige Unternehmen wie Saic, Raytheon oder BAE Systems suchen nach qualifizierten Fachkräften für Überwachungssoftware, die man nun als NSA-Werkzeuge kennt. Umgekehrt preisen im Business-Netzwerk LinkedIn Dutzende Mitglieder ihre Erfahrung mit XKeyscore und anderen NSA-Programmen als Qualifikation an.

Was Bewerber in der Regel mitbringen müssen: eine Sicherheitsfreigabe “mit Lügendetektor”. Die Kandidaten müssen Dokumente der höchsten Geheimhaltungsstufe einsehen dürfen, außerdem eine Überprüfung durchlaufen haben, um auch mit besonders gesicherten Informationen zu arbeiten.

Auch auf den XKeyscore- und den Prism-Folien steht stets “Top Secret” – die Unternehmen aus dem Dunstkreis der US-Geheimdienste suchen dennoch ganz offen nach Fachleuten. Womöglich nach solchen, die wiederum die NSA selbst ausgebildet hat. Für sein “Digital Network Exploitation Analyst Development Program” (DDP) wirbt der Geheimdienst etwa mit den Worten: “Wegen ihres Fachwissens und der Bandbreite ihrer Erfahrungen herrscht intensive Nachfrage nach Personen mit einem Abschluss in diesem Programm.”

Tatsächlich wandern ständig junge, gut ausgebildete Leute von den US-Diensten zu privaten Unternehmen ab, die einfach besser bezahlen – um dann über Outsourcing-Verträge doch wieder für NSA oder CIA zu arbeiten. So war es auch bei Edward Snowden: Er arbeitete für die CIA, bevor er sich von der privaten Firma Booz Allen Hamilton anheuern ließ, um dann für ein sechsstelliges Gehalt als Systemadministrator zu arbeiten. Bis er sich mit Tausenden NSA-Dokumenten aus dem Staub machte.

22. Juli 2013, 18:08 Uhr
Von Christian Stöcker und Ole Reißmann
Mitarbeit: Judith Horchert

Find this story at 22 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly said she knew nothing about American surveillance activities in Germany. But documents seen by SPIEGEL show that German intelligence cooperates closely with the NSA and even uses spy software provided by the US. By SPIEGEL

It was a busy two days for the surveillance specialists of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency. At the end of April, a team of 12 senior BND officials flew to the United States, where they visited the heart of the global American surveillance empire: the National Security Agency (NSA). The purpose of their mission can be read in a “top secret” NSA document which SPIEGEL has seen — one of the trove of files in the possession of whistleblower Edward Snowden.

According to the document, BND President Gerhard Schindler repeatedly expressed an “eagerness” to cooperate more closely with the NSA. The Germans, the document reads, were looking for “guidance and advice.”

Their wish was fulfilled. Senior employees with the NSA’s Foreign Affairs Directorate were assigned to look after the German delegation. The Americans organized a “strategic planning conference” to bring their German partners up to speed. In the afternoon, following several presentations on current methods of data acquisition, senior members of a division known as Special Source Operations, or SSO, spoke to their German guests. The SSO, one of the most secretive groups within the intelligence community, is the division that forms alliances with US companies, especially in the IT sector, for data mining purposes. Snowden describes this elite unit as the NSA’s “crown jewels”.

The journey to Washington wasn’t the first educational trip by German intelligence officials across the Atlantic this spring — nor was it the last. Documents from Snowden that SPIEGEL has seen show that cooperation between Berlin and Washington in the area of digital surveillance and defense has intensified considerably during the tenure of Chancellor Angela Merkel. According to one document, the Germans are determined to “strengthen and expand bilateral cooperation.”

Completely Unaware?

This is awkward news for Merkel, who is running for re-election as the head of the center-right Christian Democrats. The German campaign had been relatively uneventful until recently, but now a new issue seems to have emerged: the Americans’ lust for data. Opposition politicians have intensified their attacks in recent days. First Peer Steinbrück, the Social Democratic candidate for the Chancellery, accused Merkel of having violated her oath of office for failing to protect the basic rights of Germans. Not long later, SPD Chairman Sigmar Gabriel referred to Merkel as a “spin doctor who is trying to placate the population.” According to Gabriel, it has since been proven that the German government knew about the NSA’s activities.

But the attacks from the SPD are not the chancellor’s biggest worry; the real threat comes from within. At a very early juncture, Merkel insisted that her government had been completely unaware of the NSA’s activities. It is a position she reiterated before starting her summer vacation last Friday.

She will now be judged on the basis of those statements. Internally, Merkel’s advisors argue that she had no choice but to take such a clear position. After all, both the head of the BND and the president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, had said that they had had no detailed knowledge of the Prism surveillance program and the extent of American data collection. On what basis could Merkel have contradicted them?

But with each day, fears are growing at the Chancellery that a paper could eventually turn up that clearly shows the government’s knowledge of the NSA activities.

But does that really matter? What is worse? To be governed by a cabinet that conceals its connivance from citizens? Or to have a chancellor and ministers whose intelligence agencies exist in a parallel world, beyond the supervision of the government and parliament? Internal NSA documents show that the Americans and German intelligence agencies are cooperating more closely than previously known. The repeated assertions by the government and intelligence agencies in recent weeks that they were not fully aware of what US surveillance specialists were doing appear disingenuous in the extreme in light of the documents SPIEGEL has seen from the collection secured by Snowden.

‘Key Partners’

According to those documents, the BND, the BfV and the Bonn-based Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) all play a central role in the exchange of information among intelligence agencies. The NSA refers to them as “key partners.”

The Americans provided the BfV with one of their most productive spying tools, a system called “XKeyscore.” It’s the same surveillance program that the NSA uses to capture a large share of the up to 500 million data sets from Germany, to which it has access each month, according to internal documents seen and reported on by SPIEGEL on the first of this month.

The documents also reveal the lengths to which the German agencies and German politicians were willing to go to develop an even closer relationship with the Americans. This is especially applicable to the G-10 law, which establishes the conditions under which surveillance of German citizens is permissible. In one classified document — under a section titled “Success Stories” — it reads: “The German government modifies its interpretation of the G-10 privacy law … to afford the BND more flexibility in sharing protected information with foreign partners.”

The claim that German intelligence agencies knew nothing was already hard to believe given that they have been cooperating with American agencies for decades. According to an NSA document from this January, cooperation between the offensive divisions of the NSA and the BND’s “Technical Reconnaissance” unit began long ago in 1962.

The Americans are extremely satisfied with the Germans. For decades, Washington poked fun at the conscientious German spies, who always had a legal decree on hand to justify why they were regrettably unable to participate in an especially delicate operation. This was a source of annoyance to the Americans, but ultimately they had no choice but to accept it.

More recently, however, that has changed, as the Snowden documents indicate: The German bureaucrats have become real spies.

During the course of 2012, in particular, the Germans showed great “eagerness and desire” to improve their surveillance capacities and even “to take risks and to pursue new opportunities for cooperation with the US,” according to the NSA documents to which SPIEGEL was given access.

A Close Link

The shift to a more offensive German security policy began in 2007, when Merkel’s conservatives were in power in a coalition with the SPD, the so-called “Grand Coalition.” Based on information the NSA had passed on to the BfV, German authorities discovered a group of Islamists led by convert Fritz Gelowicz, known as the Sauerland cell. Gelowicz and several of his friends had planned to detonate bombs in Germany. To this day, the German government is grateful to the Americans for the tip.

According to the NSA document, the successful operation created “a significant level of trust” between the NSA and the BfV. Since then, the document reads, there have been “regular US-German analytic exchanges and closer cooperation in tracking both German and non-German extremist targets.” The documents show that the NSA also provided several training sessions for BfV agents. The aim was “to improve the BfV’s ability to exploit, filter and process domestic data.” The hope was to create interfaces so that data could be exchanged on a larger scale — a cooperation “that could benefit both Germany and the US,” the paper reads.

The pact also intensified on German soil. An NSA analyst accredited as a diplomat at the US Embassy in Berlin uses an office at the BfV once a week. According to the document, the analyst’s job is to “nurture” the thriving relationship with the BfV. The agent also “facilitates US requirements.” In addition, the Germans set up a “communications link” to the NSA to improve ties between agencies.

Personal relationships also intensified. In May alone, just a few weeks before the Snowden revelations began, BfV President Hans-Georg Maassen, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich and the 12-member BND delegation paid a visit to NSA headquarters. In the same month, NSA Director General Keith Alexander traveled to Berlin, where he made a stop at the Chancellery, which supervises the BND.

The cooperation went beyond high level visits. According to the papers from the Snowden files which SPIEGEL has seen, the NSA provided the BfV with XKeyscore, and BND officials were also very familiar with the tool, given that their job was to instruct their counterparts with German domestic intelligence on how to use the spy program. The main reason the BfV was to be provided with XKeyscore was to “expand their ability to support NSA as we jointly prosecute CT (counter-terrorism) targets.”

A “top secret” presentation dated Feb. 25, 2008, which almost reads like an advertising brochure (the American spies are apparently very proud of the system), reveals all the things XKeyscore was capable of doing already five years ago.

NSA Pleased with German ‘Eagerness’
According to the presentation, the system is easy to use and enables surveillance of raw data traffic “like no other system.”

An NSA transparency titled “What is XKeyscore?” describes a buffer memory that enables the program to absorb a “full take” of all unfiltered data for a number of days. In other words, XKeyscore doesn’t just track call connection records, but can also capture the contents of communication, at least in part.

In addition, the system makes it possible to retroactively view which key words targeted individuals enter into Internet search engines and which locations they search for on Google Maps.

The program, for which there are several expansions known as plug-ins, apparently has even more capabilities. For instance, “user activity” can be monitored practically in real time and “anomalous events” traced in Internet traffic. If this is true, it means that XKeyscore makes almost total digital surveillance possible.

From the German perspective, this is especially troubling. Of the roughly 500 million data sets from Germany to which the NSA has access each month, XKeyscore captured about 180 million in December 2012.

This raises several questions. Does this mean that the NSA doesn’t just have access to hundreds of millions of data sets from Germany, but also — at least for periods of days — to a so-called “full take,” meaning to the content of communication in Germany? Can the BND and the BfV access the NSA databases with their versions of XKeyscore, which would give them access to the data on German citizens stored in those databases?

If this were the case, the government could hardly claim that it had no knowledge of the Americans’ vigorous data acquisition activities.

German ‘Eagerness’ Is ‘Welcomed’

SPIEGEL put these questions to both agencies and the Chancellery, but it received no answers on the use of the system. The BND merely issued a brief statement, saying that it was regrettably unable to comment publicly on the details of intelligence activities.

The NSA and the White House were similarly curt in their responses to SPIEGEL inquiries, merely noting that they had nothing to add to the remarks President Barack Obama made during his recent visit to Berlin.

The new revelations also shine a spotlight on the presidents of the BND and the BfV, Gerhard Schindler and Hans-Georg Maassen. Both men are relatively new in their positions. But BND President Schindler in particular, in office since January 2012, has already made his mark. He embodies the new, more offensive approach being taken by the foreign intelligence agency, which the NSA has expressly praised. Schindler’s “eagerness,” according to the NSA documents, was “welcomed” already in 2012.

When he came into office, the outspoken head of the BND encapsulated the new willingness to take risks. Internally, he asked each BND department to submit three proposals for joint operations with the US intelligence agencies.

Of course, there are also positive sides to this closer cooperation with the Americans. One of the BND’s responsibilities is to protect German soldiers and prevent terrorist attacks. Doing so adequately is impossible without help from the Americans. Conversely, the BND’s reputation has improved among US intelligence agencies, especially after it proved to be helpful in the Kunduz region of northern Afghanistan, where the German military, the Bundeswehr, is stationed. The Germans are now the third-largest procurer of information there.

They don’t just share their information with the NSA, but also with 13 other Western countries. Some time ago, the agency brought its technical equipment in Afghanistan up to the latest standard. Results have been especially good since then, and the NSA is pleased.

In recent years, the BND has had the capability to listen in on phone conversations on a large scale in northern Afghanistan, aiding in the arrests of more than 20 high-ranking members of the Taliban — including Mullah Rahman, once the shadow governor of Kunduz.

Relaxed Interpretation of Privacy Laws

According to an NSA document dated April 9, Germany, as part of the surveillance coalition in Afghanistan, has developed into the agency’s “most prolific partner.” The Germans are similarly successful in North Africa, where they also have special technical capabilities of interest to the NSA. The same applies in Iraq.

But according to the documents, the German foreign intelligence agency went even further in its effort to please the Americans. “The BND has been working to influence the German government to relax interpretation of the privacy laws to provide greater opportunities of intelligence sharing,” the NSA agents noted with satisfaction in January.

Indeed, when Schindler took office, BND officials were divided over whether it was legal to pass on information to partner intelligence agencies that had been obtained in accordance with the German G-10 law. Schindler decided that it was, and the United States was pleased.

The surveillance base in Bad Aibling, a well-known American listening post in southern Germany, also shows how close ties are between the BND and the NSA. It was a symbol of technical espionage during the Cold War. Most recently, the NSA referred to the listening post by the code name “garlic.” Although the last parts of the base were officially handed over to the BND in May 2012, NSA officials still come and go.

The NSA chief for Germany is still stationed at the local Mangfall Barracks. Some 18 Americans were still working at the surveillance station at the beginning of the year, 12 from the NSA and six working for private contractors. The office is expected to be scaled back during the course of the year, with the plans ultimately calling for only six NSA employees to remain at the base. According to the Snowden documents, their work will be to “cultivate new cooperation opportunities with Germany.”

To be sure, intensive cooperation in counterterrorism activities is part of the core mission of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency. But did lawmakers know about the scope of cooperation with the Americans? And, if they did, since when?

Making Things Worse

So far, the BND has been able to count on support from the Chancellery for its new approach. But things seem to be changing. The surveillance scandal has the potential to shake public confidence in the German government and in Chancellor Merkel — and could negatively effect her chances for re-election.

The NSA’s activities, of course, are not exactly driving the German people into the streets in droves. Nevertheless, revelations as to the extent of America’s surveillance abroad are chipping away at Merkel’s image as a reliable manager of the government. Some 69 percent of Germans are dissatisfied with her efforts to shed light on the issue, a number that has alarmed the Chancellery. Until the end of last week, Merkel had tried to distance herself from the subject, issuing only sparse statements. Instead of Merkel, Interior Minister Friedrich was expected to handle the delicate matter.

But Friedrich only made things worse, returning largely empty-handed from his trip to Washington. Instead, he seemed extremely proud of the fact that he had been allowed to speak with US Vice President Joe Biden.

To make matters worse, Friedrich had hardly returned to Germany before making the remark that “security” was a “Supergrundrecht,” a new concept that implies that security trumps other civil rights. A minister charged with upholding the constitution who suddenly invented an interpretation of the German constitution that suits the NSA’s purposes? At that moment, Merkel must have realized that she couldn’t leave things entirely to her interior minister.

Last Friday, shortly before leaving for her summer vacation, Merkel unveiled an eight-point plan intended to provide more data security. But most of her points felt more like placebos. How, for example, are European intelligence agencies to agree on common data privacy guidelines if British and French intelligence agents are already snickering over the Germans’ obsession with data privacy?

In a Bind

Merkel is in a bind. On the one hand, she doesn’t want to give the impression that she is doing nothing about the Americans’ lust for information. On the other hand, this also brings the scandal closer to the chancellor. In the end, it will revolve around the question of how much the government knew about the Americans’ surveillance activities. Last Friday, the BND insisted, once again, that it had “no knowledge of the name, scope and extent of the NSA ‘Prism’ project being discussed.”

But even if that’s true, Prism was only a part of the NSA’s surveillance system, and the new documents show that Germany was indeed extremely familiar with the agency’s comprehensive ability to spy. They benefited from it, and they wanted more.

But Merkel claims that she knew nothing about the Americans’ surveillance software. “I became aware of programs like Prism through current news reports,” she told the left-leaning weekly newspaper Die Zeit last week. According to Merkel’s staff, when she uses such language, she is relying on statements made by the German intelligence chiefs.

But what does that mean? Does the German government still have its intelligence agencies under control? Or have they become a kind of state-within-a-state?

And who exactly keeps track of whether the agencies, in their zeal to enforce the “Supergrundrecht” of security, haven’t already gone too far?

The place where the activities of domestic and foreign intelligence agencies ought to be debated is the Parliamentary Control Panel in the German Bundestag. By law, the government is required to regularly and “comprehensively” inform the 11 members of the board, which meets in secret, about the work of the BND and the BfV, and explain “procedures with special importance.”

Oddly enough, the board has met four times since the beginning of the NSA scandal, and, four times, lawmakers have learned little about the global data surveillance programs. Instead, they were forced to listen to long-winded lectures by those responsible, the essence of which generally was: We really don’t know anything.

Spotlight on Merkel

Over the years, the board has mutated into a stage for large egos and is no longer particularly secret. The problem is that many panel members don’t have sufficient time or expertise to truly understand the kind of activities the intelligence agencies are engaged in. It is a perfect situation for Germany’s spies: The less the public learns about their activities, the more they can go about their business undisturbed.

“Monitoring of the agencies is purely theoretical,” says Hans-Christian Ströbele, the Green Party representative on the board. “We don’t learn about the truly explosive issues until they’ve been exposed by the media.” This isn’t surprising, given the vagueness of statutory provisions on the supervision of intelligence agencies.

The agencies enjoy “complete freedom,” says attorney Wolfgang Neškovi, who once spent many years on the control board for the Left Party. The CDU, its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), and the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) have now agreed to establish an intelligence body to monitor the intelligence agencies. But in light of recent events, CDU domestic policy expert Clemens Binninger believes that a “major solution” is needed. He favors the idea of a parliamentary intelligence official, to be provided with his own powers and staff.

There is also growing mistrust of the intelligence agencies within Merkel’s government, a situation which led to a memorable scene in the federal press conference last Wednesday. According to a NATO document that had been circulated before the press conference, the German military was indeed aware of the existence of Prism. Government spokesman Steffen Seibert stated that it was the BND’s assessment that the program in question had nothing to do with NSA spy software. But he made sure to keep a distance from the intelligence agency’s assessment. Later, the Defense Ministry issued a statement of its own which directly contradicted the BND statement.

It is an awkward situation for Merkel. In the midst of an election campaign, her government suddenly looks to be characterized by chaos. Of course, if it turns out that the intelligence agencies were deceiving her, she could clean house. BND chief Schindler would seem to be in the front of the firing line, with Ronald Pofalla, who, as Merkel’s chief of staff, is tasked with monitoring the intelligence agencies, not far behind.

But the Chancellery staff has no illusions. The SPD and the Greens will continue putting Merkel in the NSA spotlight no matter what happens. “The chancellor is more interested in defending the interests of the US intelligence agencies in Germany than German interests in the United States,” says SPD Chairman Gabriel. It seems unlikely that the opposition will stand down any time between now and election day, on Sept. 22.

BY RENÉ PFISTER, LAURA POITRAS, MARCEL ROSENBACH, JÖRG SCHINDLER and HOLGER STARK
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
07/22/2013 12:19 PM

Find this story at 22 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Die Präsidenten der deutschen Geheimdienste haben Vorwürfe dementiert, wonach sie mittels NSA-Spähsoftware im großen Stil Daten gesammelt hätten. Die Software sei nur zu Testzwecken verwendet worden.

Hans-Georg Maaßen, der Präsident des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz, gerät nach Enthüllungen über eine in Deutschland verwendete NSA-Spähsoftware zusehends unter Druck

Der Präsident des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), Hans-Georg Maaßen, und der Präsident des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND), Gerhard Schindler, haben sich gegen die Vorwürfe gewehrt, ihre Dienste hätten in großem Umfang mit dem US-Geheimdienst NSA (National Security Agency) zusammengearbeitet. Zu einem Bericht des Nachrichtenmagazins “Der Spiegel”, wonach das BfV NSA-Software zur großflächigen Ausspähung von Daten verwende, sagte Maaßen der Zeitung “Bild am Sonntag”, dass dies nur zur Testzwecken geschehe. Die zur Verfügung gestellte Software werde “derzeit” aber nicht für die Arbeit des BfV eingesetzt.
Anzeige

Auch BND-Chef Schindler sagte der Zeitung, es gebe keine “millionenfache monatliche Weitergabe von Daten aus Deutschland an die NSA” durch seinen Dienst. 2012 seien zwei einzelne personenbezogene Datensätze deutscher Staatsbürger an die NSA übermittelt worden. Die Zusammenarbeit mit der NSA habe er jüngst im Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremium vorgetragen.
Riexinger fordert Suspendierung der Geheimdienst-Chefs

“Der Spiegel” hatte am Samstag vorab aus seiner jüngsten Ausgabe berichtet, der Verfassungsschutz habe der NSA mit der Schnüffelsoftware “Xkeyscore” beim Datensammeln geholfen. Mit dem Programm könne unter anderem sichtbar gemacht werden, welche Begriffe eine Zielperson in eine Suchmaschine eingegeben habe. Auch sei das System in der Lage, teilweise auf Kommunikationsinhalte zuzugreifen.

Der Vorsitzende der Partei Die Linke, Bernd Riexinger, forderte die Suspendierung Maaßens und Schindlers “bis zur vollständigen Klärung der Vorwürfe”. Alles spreche dafür, dass die deutschen Geheimdienste die “systematische Aushebelung von Grundrechten” betrieben hätten. Auch die Klärung der politischen Verantwortung müsse ohne Ansehen der Person vorangetrieben werden. Im kommenden Bundestag werde seine Partei deshalb die Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses beantragen, fügte Riexinger hinzu.
Grüne fordern Änderung des Grundgesetzes

Als Konsequenz aus der NSA-Datenaffäre fordern die Grünen eine Änderung des Grundgesetzes. In einem Beitrag für die “Frankfurter Rundschau” schreiben die Spitzenkandidaten Katrin Göring-Eckardt und Jürgen Trittin: “Was für Briefe gilt, muss für jede E-Mail und SMS gelten.” Deshalb wollen die Grünen “den Artikel 10 Grundgesetz – das Postgeheimnis – ausbauen, zu einem Kommunikations- und Mediennutzungsgeheimnis auch für die digitale Welt”.

21. Juli 2013, 10:30 Uhr

Find this story at 21 July 2013

© stern.de

Der BND wisse seit Jahren von der nahezu totalen Datenerfassung
Der Auslandsgeheimdienst BND und das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz nutzen laut eines Medienberichts eine Spähsoftware des US-amerikanischen Geheimdienstes NSA. Es gilt als eines der ergiebigsten Spionage-Programme und ermöglicht nahezu digitale Totalüberwachung.
Was wissen Angela Merkel und ihre Minister in der Abhör-Affäre? Laut einem Bericht des Nachirchtenmagazins „Spiegel“ nutzen der Auslandsgeheimdienst BND und das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz eine Spähsoftware des US-amerikanischen Geheimdienstes NSA. Das berichtet das Magazin am Samstag auf seiner Internetseite. Das gehe aus geheimen Unterlagen der NSA hervor, die dem Magazin vorlägen. Demnach habe sich der BND um die Schulung des Verfassungsschutzes mit dem Umgang des Programms gekümmert. Der Verfassungsschutz, so das Magazin weiter, habe die NSA bei der Terrorbekämpfung unterstützt.

Das System „XKeyscore“, um das es sich handele, sei ein ergiebiges Spionagewerkzeug, so der „Spiegel“ weiter. Es ermögliche die digitale Totalüberwachung und könne beispielsweise sichtbar machen, nach welchen Begriffen Zielpersonen im Internet gesucht haben. Von rund 500 Millionen Datensätzen aus Deutschland, auf die die NSA monatlich Zugriff habe, seien im Dezember 2012 etwa 180 Millionen von „Xkeyscore“ erfasst worden.

Verantwortungslose Heuchelei
In der Meldung des „Spiegel“ heißt es außerdem, dass sich die „Zusammenarbeit deutscher Dienste mit der NSA zuletzt intensiviert“ hätte. Weiterhin hätten die Amerikaner die deutschen Kollegen und den BND-Präsidenten Gerhard Schindler für ihren Eifer gelobt. In Afghanistan, so zitiert das Magazin aus einem internen Papier, sei der BND der „fleißigste Partner“ in Sachen Informationsbeschaffung. BND und Verfassungsschutz hätten sich auf Anfragen des „Spiegels“ aber nicht zum Einsatz des Spionagewerkzeugs geäußert.

Die Hinweise auf eine Einbindung europäischer Nachrichtendienste in die Ausspähprogramme des US-Geheimdienstes NSA verdichten sich also. Nach Darstellung des früheren NSA-Chefs Michael Hayden im ZDF hatten die USA ihre Kooperation mit den Europäern nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 massiv ausgeweitet – und dabei keinen Zweifel an den Zielen gelassen: „Wir waren sehr offen zu unseren Freunden.“ Zu dieser Zeit regierten in Deutschland SPD und Grüne. Sie dringen nun auf rasche Aufklärung. Die CDU warf der Opposition deshalb „verantwortungslose Heuchelei“ vor.

Samstag, 20.07.2013, 18:46
dpa / Paul Zinken

Find this story at 20 July 2013

© FOCUS Online 1996-2013

The German government Wednesday denied a report claiming that the nation’s military knew for years about the US surveillance programme PRISM revealed by fugitive former intelligence analyst Edward Snowden.

Germany’s foreign intelligence service BND said that a separate programme with the same name existed for NATO forces in Afghanistan to share intelligence.

The spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who faces elections on September 22, said he had no reason to doubt the BND statement.

The issue is sensitive for Merkel, who said last week she only learnt about the scope of the US National Security Agency (NSA) snooping through media reports.

Many Germans are angry that their emails, phone calls, web searches and other data have been captured and stored under the NSA programme.

Any suggestion that the government failed to stop it or was complicit in it
would spell political danger for Merkel, whose chancellery oversees Germany’s
secret services.

The mass-circulation daily Bild reported earlier that the German military
command for northern Afghanistan had been informed of PRISM in September 2011

in a letter from the Kabul command of the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force.

According to Bild the letter mentioned that the programme was for phone
and email surveillance and run by the NSA.

However, the BND later said in a brief statement: “The programme referred
to as PRISM in today’s Bild newspaper is a NATO/ISAF programme that is not
identical to the PRISM programme of the NSA. It is also not classified as
secret.”

The BND also stressed that it “had no knowledge of the name, scope and extent of the NSA programme”.

Merkel has testily told Washington that “we are not in the Cold War anymore” but also defended the role of secret services in keeping citizens safe and preventing terrorist attacks.

Snowden, on the run from the US government, has been marooned at a Moscow
airport since June 23 and on Tuesday filed an application for temporary asylum
in Russia. Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua have said they would be open to
offering refuge to Snowden.

Published: 17 Jul 2013 17:00 CET | Print version

Find this story at 17 July 2013

© The Local Europe GmbH

Der NSA-Skandal geht in Woche sechs, doch die Aufklärung läuft schleppend. Die Spähaffäre wirft ein Schlaglicht auf das Geflecht von Bundesregierung, Parlament und Agenten-Apparat. Kann man Geheimdienste überhaupt kontrollieren?

Berlin – Die Bundesregierung gerät im Skandal um amerikanische Spähaktivitäten zunehmend unter Druck – und zieht sich auf drei Formeln zurück. Erstens: Deutsche und ausländische Nachrichtendienste arbeiten zusammen. Zweitens: Von der Dimension der Spähprogramme habe man erst durch den Whistleblower Edward Snowden erfahren. Drittens: Details über die Arbeit deutscher Geheimdienste werden nicht öffentlich, sondern in Gremien beraten.

In einem dieser Gremien ging die Debatte um die Spionageaffäre am Dienstag in die nächste Runde: Innenminister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) war im Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremium zu Gast – eine vertraulich tagende Gruppe, die die deutschen Geheimdienste überwachen soll. Dreimal tagte das Gremium in den vergangenen Wochen. Viel klüger ist man allerdings noch immer nicht.

Der NSA-Skandal wirft ein Licht auf das undurchsichtige Geflecht von Bundesregierung, Parlament und Geheimdiensten: Wer informiert wen? Kann man Nachrichtendienste überhaupt kontrollieren? Wie geht es jetzt weiter?

Die wichtigsten Fragen und Antworten:

1. Warum tagt das Gremium geheim?

Die elf Mitglieder des Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremiums (PKG) setzen sich aus Innen- und Sicherheitsexperten aller Bundestagsfraktionen zusammen. Sie treffen sich in einem abhörsicheren, fensterlosen Raum in einem Nebengebäude des Reichstags, unweit der Kantine. Da die Arbeit der Geheimdienste naturgemäß geheim bleiben soll, ist die Gruppe zur Verschwiegenheit verpflichtet, auch gegenüber anderen Abgeordneten.

Innenminister Friedrich berichtete am Dienstag dem PKG, was er während seines Besuchs in Washington an Informationen bekam. Ähnlich wie beim Bundessicherheitsrat, der über Rüstungsexporte entscheidet, dringen aber nur selten Details nach draußen, so auch dieses Mal.

Bei der letzten Sitzung war Kanzleramtsminister Ronald Pofalla geladen, der unter anderem für die Koordinierung der Geheimdienste zuständig ist. Dazu die Chefs der drei Geheimdienste: Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Militärischer Abschirmdienst (MAD), Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV). Die Grünen fordern, die Kanzlerin selbst müsse vor dem Gremium erscheinen. Das soll in absehbarer Zeit allerdings nicht passieren.

Die Regierung muss das Gremium über die Arbeit der Geheimdienste und besondere Vorgänge unterrichten. Die Gruppe darf Geheimakten einsehen und Mitarbeiter der Dienste befragen.

So weit die Theorie. In der Praxis kann die Arbeit frustrierend sein, denn was Bundesregierung und Geheimdienste für berichtenswert halten, entscheiden sie zunächst einmal selbst. Die Folge: Von wirklich heiklen Vorfällen oder möglichen Skandalen erfahren die Bundestagskontrolleure oft erst aus den Medien.

2. Kann man Geheimdienste überhaupt kontrollieren?

Zwar mag die Kontrolle hierzulande besser sein als anderswo. Doch eine echte Überwachung der Geheimdienste ist kaum möglich. Wie sollen elf Parlamentarier auch überblicken, was Zehntausende Agenten im In- und Ausland treiben?

Der Grünen-Abgeordnete Hans-Christian Ströbele, Dienstältester im PKG, sagte einmal: “Wie sollen wir die Geheimdienste kontrollieren, wenn wir keine Informationen bekommen?” Der Abgeordnete Wolfgang Neskovic, der für die Linken bis 2012 im PKG saß, nannte das Kontrollniveau “erbärmlich”, das Gremium einen “Wachhund ohne Gebiss”. Geheimdienstler würden die Sitzungen als “Märchenstunde” verspotten.

Neben dem PKG ist aber auch noch die beim Bundestag angesiedelte sogenannte G-10-Kommission für die Kontrolle der Geheimdienste zuständig. Der Name bezieht sich auf das “Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses” (Artikel-10-Gesetz). Auch dieses Gremium tagt geheim. Es hat vier Mitglieder, die vom PKG bestellt werden. Sie müssen keine Bundestagsabgeordneten sein. Derzeit sitzt dem Gremium der SPD-Politiker Hans de With vor, der einst Parlamentarischer Staatssekretär im Justizministerium war.

Die G-10-Kommission muss ihre Genehmigung erteilen, wenn Geheimdienste Computer oder Telefone anzapfen wollen, um deutsche Staatsbürger auszuspähen. Auch die Durchsuchung von Kommunikationsdaten nach bestimmten verdächtigen Schlagworten muss die Kommission genehmigen.

2011 soll das Gremium den Inlandsgeheimdiensten insgesamt 156 Abhörmaßnahmen bewilligt haben. Die Gründe dafür sind im Gesetz festgelegt, unter anderem geht es um Terrorabwehr, Waffen- und Drogenschmuggel sowie organisierte Geldwäsche.

Allerdings kann auch der Auslandsgeheimdienst BND bei der G-10-Kommission beantragen, im großen Stil Daten an den internationalen Internetknotenpunkten abzufischen. Eine flächendeckende Überwachung ist verboten, das Gesetz sieht eine Grenze von 20 Prozent vor. Die wird angeblich nicht ausgeschöpft, sondern “pendelt bei etwa fünf Prozent”, sagte jüngst Kommissionschef de With.

3. Was wussten deutsche Agenten vom US-Lauschangriff?

Darauf gibt es bislang keine abschließende Antwort. Die hiesigen Geheimdienstler sagen, sie hätten keine Hinweise darauf, dass an deutschen Kommunikationsknotenpunkten Daten abgesaugt wurden. Es gebe zwar eine Zusammenarbeit mit den US-Behörden. Über massenhafte Lauscheinsätze gegen deutsche Bürger sei man aber nicht informiert gewesen.

Der Whistleblower Snowden hatte im SPIEGEL angegeben, deutsche und amerikanische Geheimdienste steckten in Sachen Internetüberwachung “unter einer Decke”. Auch ein Bericht der “Bild”-Zeitung wirft neue Fragen auf. Demnach wusste der BND angeblich seit Jahren von der nahezu kompletten Datenerfassung durch die Amerikaner und griff in Gefahrenlagen aktiv darauf zu.

Derzeit kann nichts nachgewiesen, aber Zweifel können auch nicht ausgeräumt werden. Wenn deutsche Geheimdienste von den Aktionen der US-Dienste gewusst und diese möglicherweise unterstützt haben, wäre das nach deutschem Recht strafbar.

4. Wie geht es jetzt weiter?

Die Kanzlerin telefonierte mit US-Präsident Barack Obama, mehrere Fragenkataloge wurden verfasst, zwei Delegationen nach Washington geschickt. Zur Zeit wird gewartet: Darauf, dass die USA einige als geheim eingeordnete Dokumente deklassifizieren, also aus der Geheimhaltungsstufe herausheben. Von diesem Schritt verspricht sich Berlin Aufschluss über das Ausmaß der NSA-Aktivitäten. Weitere Besuche und Gespräche sind geplant.

Teile der Opposition fordern einen parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschuss. Schnelle Antworten gäbe es durch den aber auch nicht. Im EU-Parlament beschäftigt sich der Innenausschuss mit der Materie und will bis Ende des Jahres einen Bericht vorlegen. Zu einem Sonderausschuss konnte man sich in Straßburg nicht durchringen. Sechs Wochen nach den Enthüllungen sind also wichtige Fragen noch immer offen. Gut möglich, dass das Thema den Wahlkampf mitbestimmen wird – vor allem, wenn noch weitere Details herauskommen sollten.

16. Juli 2013, 14:25 Uhr
Von Annett Meiritz und Philipp Wittrock

Find this story at 16 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Noch immer behauptet die Bundesregierung eisern, sie habe von den US-Schnüffelprogrammen erst kürzlich erfahren. Nun wird klar, dass der BND schon vor Jahren gezielt in den USA nach gespeicherten Daten von entführten Deutschen fragte – und sie auch bekam.

Berlin – Der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) hat in den vergangenen Jahren immer wieder von der Sammelwut der US-Geheimdienste im Internet profitiert und offenkundig von der kompletten Speicherung auch deutscher Daten gewusst. Unter Berufung auf US-Geheimdienstler berichtete die “Bild”-Zeitung am Montag, der deutsche Dienst habe bei Geiselnahmen im Jemen und Afghanistan in den vergangenen Jahren mehrfach gezielt um die von der NSA gespeicherten Internetdaten der Entführten gebeten. So sollten die letzten Kontakte der Gekidnappten und mögliche Hintergründe des Verschwindens recherchiert werden.

Was sich wie eine selbstverständliche Amtshilfe unter befreundeten Diensten anhört, hat weitreichende Implikationen. Da der BND sich direkt wegen der gespeicherten Daten an die US-Kollegen wandte, müssen die Deutschen von dem Speicherprogramm der Amerikaner gewusst haben. Ebenso muss dem Geheimdienst klar gewesen sein, dass die USA auch deutsche Kommunikation standardmäßig speichern.

Die neuen Fakten passen nicht zur angeblichen Ahnungslosigkeit der deutschen Regierung bis hoch ins Kanzleramt. Diesem ist der BND direkt unterstellt. Von dort ließ Kanzlerin Merkel noch in der vergangenen Woche mitteilen, sie habe erst aus der Presse vom Abhörprogramm Prism erfahren. Seit Anfang Juni enthüllt der Ex-Geheimdienstmitarbeiter Edward Snowden immer wieder Details über die Praktiken der internationalen Geheimdienste (eine Chronik der Affäre finden Sie hier).

Für den BND waren die US-Daten sicherlich hilfreich. Bei Entführungen sind vor allem die letzten E-Mails und Telefongespräche wichtig. An ihnen kann man ablesen, ob die Opfer bedroht wurden, es geschäftliche Probleme im Vorfeld gab oder ob gar das Umfeld der Gekidnappten an der Verschleppung beteiligt sein könnte.

Die Daten der NSA flossen laut “Bild”-Zeitung mehrfach in die Arbeit deutscher Krisenstäbe ein, um entführte Deutsche zu befreien. US-Regierungs- und Geheimdienstkreise betonen laut der Zeitung ebenfalls, dass der BND seit Jahren von der nahezu totalen Datenerfassung weiß, in Gefahrenlagen darauf zugreifen konnte – und dies auch aktiv tat.

Auch in Zukunft sollen die Daten fließen

Die Bundesregierung reagierte ausweichend auf diese Enthüllungen. Ein Regierungssprecher sagte lediglich, es sei “bekannt, dass es zwischen den deutschen Nachrichtendiensten und US-Diensten eine langjährige Kooperation gibt”.

Tatsächlich aber bangen die Dienste derzeit um diese Kooperation. So bat Innenminister Hans-Peter Friedrich bei seiner US-Reise hinter verschlossenen Türen eindringlich, dass die USA trotz der Affäre auch in Zukunft NSA-Informationen weitergeben. Dies verlautete aus seinem Ministerium. Aus Friedrichs Sicht sind die US-Daten – ganz gleich wo sie herkommen – für die Gefahrenabwehr in Deutschland extrem wichtig. Öffentlich erwähnt hat er seine Bitte an die USA jedoch in keinem der vielen Statements während und nach der Reise.

15. Juli 2013, 11:16 Uhr

Find this story at 15 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

German authorities insist they knew nothing of the NSA’s Internet spying operations. But SPIEGEL research shows how closely US and German agencies work together. The German opposition is asking uncomfortable questions 11 weeks ahead of a general election.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government faces uncomfortable questions about German involvement in American and British Internet and telephone surveillance after whistleblower Edward Snowden told SPIEGEL that German agencies and the NSA are “in bed together.”

With a general election due in 11 weeks, the controversy has opened up a new battleground in the campaign, and the opposition center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party are charging onto it.

SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel said it could be that Merkel “knows more than has become known so far.”

Thomas Oppermann, a senior member of the SPD, called on the government to cancel surveillance cooperation agreements with the United States. Hans-Christian Ströbele, a lawmaker with the Greens, said he didn’t believe the government’s statements that it didn’t know about the spying.

“For me it’s just a matter of time before the government admits something,” he told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Petra Pau of the Left Party said Merkel should stop “pretending she knew nothing.”

For the last four weeks, the German government has been insisting that it didn’t know that the United States has spent years monitoring vast quantities of Internet traffic, emails and telephone calls.

The parliament’s oversight committee monitoring German intelligence activities has met three times since the revelations came to light, and each time senior government representatives who had been called to testify shrugged their shoulders.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution — Germany’s domestic intelligence agency — the BND foreign intelligence agency, and Merkel’s Chancellery were all apparently unaware of what has been going on. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said he knew nothing but made clear that the data fishing by Germany’s American friends was bound to be OK. Criticism of it, he said, amounted to “anti-Americanism.”

Germany Cooperates Closely With NSA

But Snowden told SPIEGEL that the BND knew more about the activities of the NSA in Germany than previously known.

SPIEGEL reporting also indicates that cooperation between the NSA and Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, is more intensive than previously known.

A lot is at stake for Europe and the US. This week talks will begin on the planned trans-Atlantic free trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Invesment Partnership (TTIP). The Americans’ snooping could endanger the project.

The Snowden case is entering its next round. At first he revealed how the NSA spes on data networks. Last week SPIEGEL reported that the US was also spying on its allies including Germany. Now the controversy has broadened to include whether the allies themselves are involved in the snooping.

There are times when the inner workings of the world suddenly come to light. Veils fall to the ground and the world suddenly looks different. These are such times.

A man does something that represents the best traditions of the West — he enlightens people, points out wrongdoing and opens eyes. That’s what Edward Snowden has done. And what’s happening to him? The West’s leading nation, the US, is hunting him down, and almost every country is going along with it, especially the rest of the West.

Western Nations Kow-Towing to US

Fear is governing the world, fear of the wrath of the US, fear of President Barack Obama who was once hailed as a global savior. Few seem ready to dare to take on the political and economic superpower.

The West is making itself look ridiculous through submissiveness, by failing to live up to its own values. Meanwhile, states like China or Russia, the constant focus of Western moral finger-wagging, were the first where Snowden sought shelter.

Last Wednesday, Merkel and Obama had a telephone conversation in which both tried to play down the row. There would be “opportunities for an intense exchange about these questions,” officials said afterwards. That wasn’t the tough talking that 78 percent of Germans are demanding of Merkel in her dealings with the US on the issue, according to a recent opinion poll by Infratest Dimap.

This week a German government delegation will travel to Washington for talks with the Department of Homeland Security, the NSA and the US administration. They hope to glean information on what has been going on. When German opposition parties complained that the delegation only consisted of second-tier officials, Interior Minister Friedrich hastily decided to join them.

9/11 Silenced Criticism of ‘Echelon’ Spying System

Foreign data snooping has caused outrage in Germany and Europe before. Twelve years ago, a European Parliament committee criticized “Echelon,” which it described as a “global surveillance system for private and business communcations.” In a 200-page report, the committee said that within Europe, all communications via email, telephone and fax were regularly monitored by the intelligence services of the US, Britain, Canada and Australia.

The European lawmakers recommended a series of rules and agreements to curb the snooping. But two months later, terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and it quickly emerged that some of them had lived in Germany. All criticism of “Echelon” fell abruptly silent.

But the German government, despite all its current protestations of ignorance and innocence, cannot be unaware that US surveillance specialists remain active on German soil. At present the NSA is expanding its presence in Germany considerably.

The best-known monitoring facility is in the Bavarian town of Bad Aibling, extensively described in the “Echelon” report. Officially, the Americans gave up the listening post in 2004. But the white domes of the “Echelon” system, known as radomes, are still there. When the site was officially turned over to civilian use, that didn’t apply to the area with the snooping technology. A connecting cable now transmits the captured signals to the site of the Mangfall army base a few hundred meters away. This is officially a German army communications base — but in truth it belongs to the BND. Cooperating closely with a handful of NSA surveillance specialists, the German foreign intelligence service analyzes telephone calls, faxes and everything else transmitted via satellite.

BND Admits Monitoring Cooperation With NSA

Officially, the BND post in Bad Aibling doesn’t exist, and neither does the local cooperation with the Americans. But in a confidential meeting with the parliament’s intelligence oversight committee, BND head Gerhard Schindler last Wednesday confirmed the cooperation with the US service,

There are other locations in Germany where the Americans engage in data monitoring. The US army runs a top secret lstening post in the town of Griesheim near Darmstadt, in western Germany. Five radomes stand on the edge of the August-Euler airfield, hidden behind a little forest. If you drive past “Dagger Complex” you get suspicious looks from security guards. It’s forbidden to take photos. Inside, soldiers analyze information for the armed forces in Europe. The NSA supports the analysts.

The need for data appears to be so great that the US army is building a new Consolidated Intelligence Center in the nearby city of Wiesbaden. The $124 million building will house bug-proof offices and a high-tech control center. As soon as it’s completed, “Dagger Complex” will be shut down. Only US construction firms are being used. Even the building materials are being brought in from the US and closely guarded along the way.

Is it really conceivable that the German government knows nothing of what the NSA is doing on its own doorstep? Last month Interior Minister Friedrich said in a parliamentary debate on the NSA snooping: “Germany has fortunately been spared big attacks in recent years. We owe that in part to the information provided by our American friends.” Sentences like that reveal a pragmatic view of the US surveillance apparatus: What the NSA gets up to in detail is secondary — what counts is what its snooping reveals. And that information, intelligence officials admit, is indispensable.

Without the tip-offs provided by the Americans, authorities would be partly blind in the fight against terrorism. While the BND and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution are bound by strict rules, foreign intelligence agencies operating in Germany are largely uncontrolled in what they do, as long as it serves the war on terror.

Frankfurt’s Role as East-West Data Crossroads

The example of Frankfurt, Germany’s financial center, illustrates that. Frankfurt is a major crossroads for digital data. This where fiber-optic cables from Eastern Europe and Central Asia meet data lines from Western Europe. Emails, photos, telepone calls and tweets from crisis-hit countries in the Middle East also pass through Frankfurt. This is where international providers — companies like Deutsche Telekom or US firm Level 3, which claims to transmit a third of the world’s Internet traffic — operate digital hubs.

For agencies like the NSA or BND, Frankfurt is an inexhaustible source of information. Documents provided by Snowden show that the NSA accesses half a billion pieces of communication each month. The BND also helps itself to data here. It is allowed to tap up to 20 percent of it. The service feeds data from five hubs in Germany for analysis to its headquarters in Pullach near Munich. Its analysts comb through the data for phone calls, emails or Internet messages that might uncover a nuclear smuggling deal or an al-Qaida plot.

The BND uses the NSA’s help to analyze Internet traffic from the Middle East. The Americans provide the Germans with special tools that work with Arabic search terms. Does the US agency get access to the data in return? The BND denies this. All cooperation is in the form of assessing “finished intelligence,” or completed intelligence reports, it insists.

But relations between the BND and NSA are closer than publicly admitted. They work together on clearly defined individual joint operations abroad when it comes to fighting terrorism or monitoring weapons shipments. At the Bad Aibling listening post, an NSA team works closely with BND agents. The BND uses Bad Aibling mainly to monitor Thuraya satellite phones used in remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Americans help the Germans in this work. Is it really conceivable that with such close cooperation the one partner didn’t know what the other was doing?

US Need Not Fear Much German Criticism

“We have no information so far that Internet hubs in Germany were spied on by the NSA,” says the president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Hans-Georg Maassen. He also has no information on any snooping on the German government by the US. The agency has set up a working group to investigate Snowden’s allegations.

In the end it’s relatively insignificant whether any light will be shed on the outflow of German Internet data to the US. The German authorities are unlikely to criticize the Americans too harshly. “We can be blackmailed,” said a high-ranking security official. “If the NSA shut off the tap, we’d be blind.”

The US isn’t just a friend, it’s an all-powerful force one can choose to be friends with or not. The Snowden case shows how closely intertwined friendship and submissiveness can be.

SVEN BECKER, THOMAS DARNSTÄDT, JENS GLÜSING, HUBERT GUDE, FRITZ HABEKUSS, KONSTANTIN VON HAMMERSTEIN, MARC HUJER, DIRK KURBJUWEIT, MATHIEU VON ROHR, MARCEL ROSENBACH, MATTHIAS SCHEPP, JÖRG SCHINDLER, GREGOR PETER SCHMITZ, CHRISTOPH SCHULT, HOLGER STARK
07/08/2013 05:47 PM

Find this story at 8 july 2013
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Too much data surveillance?

Not everybody has a sense of irony. Some people simply lack the ability to read between the lines. A funny, ironical remark left online could see the police come knocking at your door.

“I’m known for my sense of irony. But even I would not have come to think of putting a statue of liberty in New York Harbor,” Irish Nobel Prize winner of Literature George Bernard Shaw once said. But, as far as we know, he got away with this sharp-tongued comment when trying to enter US territory, a comment that implicitly made fun of the US’ idea of liberty.

But maybe he was only left alone because in the early 20th century, border officials did not yet have access to the vast amount of data about people desiring to cross into their countries as they do today. Today, every visitor seems transparent; and harmless but remarks are often interpreted as evil intentions. Shaw’s fellow countryman just experienced that.

US Homeland security strike

The young Irishman was denied entry by the US homeland security agency DHS at Los Angeles airport. The reason: an ironic remark on Twitter. The sender insists he wasn’t even targeting the US. On the contrary, he wanted to tell his followers that he was going to “party to the extreme in LA,” and he described it by saying that “digging out Marilyn Monroe” and “destroying America” were part of his plan. But immigration officers didn’t care much about his sense of humor. He spent 12 hours detained in a cell.
Security comes first during border controls in the US

“I can only advise against such remarks, even if you’re sure you’re being ironic,” said Klaus Lodigkeit, a Hamburg-based IT law specialist. “Americans store almost all our phonecalls, they store a lot online, and make backup copies. And if they search for a name or a nickname online and find such posts they can link to a certain person then you represent a danger for the security of the United States. So be careful.”

Cheeky teenager

But offhand and ironic remarks online can also be misinterpreted outside of airports’ immigration zones. Just before the verdict for security guard George Zimmerman was announced, the killer of black teenager Trayvon Martin, a 15-year-old in the small town of Zion in Illinois posted a comment online. If Zimmerman was acquitted, he wrote, he would shoot dead every single person in Zion and then also be acquitted of charges.

A short while later, local police detained the teenager. After an examination, the officers were convinced he didn’t constitute a threat. “He doesn’t own any weapons and doesn’t have access to any either,” a police report said.

Crazy or just foolish?

18-year-old US citizen Justin Carter wasn’t that lucky. According to his parents, he had a fight with other users while playing a fantasy role-playing game online. When the users then wrote on Facebook that he was “a lunatic, crazy, and off his head,” Carter replied: “Yeah, sure I’m a total mess, I will go and shoot children at a school and eat their beating hearts.”

He must have instantly realized that remarks like that are often misunderstood. He quickly added a ‘LOL’ [‘Laughing out loud’] and a ‘JK’ [‘Just Kidding’]. But it didn’t help: He spent several months in prison because of that comment on Facebook. He has been released on bail.

“If you publish a concrete threat to life or physical condition online, the threat itself constitutes a criminal offence,” according to IT legal expert Lodigkeit. “It’s enough to be convicted. And you’re remanded in custody while investigations are conducted because you’re considered a flight risk.”
The Pirate party criticizes online spying and surveillance activities by governments

But does that give security agencies in Germany and the US the right to spy on private communication? “No,” said Mario Tants, spokesman for online freedom advocates the Pirate party in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. “In the cases we’ve talked about, security authorities in the US didn’t screen private communication. Instead, what happened was that somebody who knew the respective perpetrator or potential perpetrator gave them hints. And if a real person gives a real hint, then security agencies are obliged to examine what’s going on.”

‘NSA spy protection league’

The latest case from Germany is slightly more confusing in comparison. 28-year-old Daniel Bangert invited others on facebook to join him on a “Walk to the Dagger complex.” It’s a US-American installation near Darmstadt in the German state of Hesse, where the NSA is said to have underground offices. Bangert clearly used an ironic tone, calling his group the “NSA spy protection league,” inviting others to “explore and observe.”

But the US military police in Germany apparently don’t share Bangert’s sense of humor. The Americans informed German security agencies who then visited the young man early in the morning and interrogated him. State security were also involved and asked Bangert questions about his “political leanings,” as he put it.

“That’s exactly what we’re critical of,” said Mario Tants from the Pirates’ party. “In future, any citizen writing anything anywhere has to expect a visit by the police or state protection. That’s the problem in surveillance states, and we’re actually effectively already there.”

Date 21.07.2013
Author Marcus Lütticke / nh
Editor Jessie Wingard

Find this story at 21 July 2013

© 2013 Deutsche Welle

Wegen eines angekündigten Spaziergangs zum streng geheimen Dagger Complex bekam Daniel Bangert Besuch vom Staatsschutz. Das schreckt ihn nicht ab: Jetzt lädt er zu einer zweiten Erkundungstour nach Griesheim, um “NSA-Spione” zu beobachten.

Selten hat ein Spaziergang für so viel Aufsehen gesorgt: Der Griesheimer Daniel Bangert hatte auf Facebook scherzhaft dazu eingeladen, einen Erkundungsgang zum streng geheimen Dagger Complex zu unternehmen. Vor der abgeschotteten US-Einrichtung in der Nähe von Darmstadt wolle man “gemeinsam den bedrohten Lebensraum der NSA-Spione erforschen”.

Der ironische Aufruf stieß auf Facebook zunächst nicht auf viele Interessenten, dafür aber bei der Polizei. Die US-Militärpolizei, die für die Sicherheit auf dem Dagger Complex zuständig ist, hatte die deutsche Polizei eingeschaltet – die Bangert prompt aus dem Bett klingelte. Danach kam auch noch der Staatsschutz vorbei und brachte Bangert dazu, seinen Spaziergang als Demo anzumelden, was er auch tat. Schließlich spazierten 70 Leute in Begleitung zweier Streifenwagen zu der abgeschotteten US-Einrichtung.

Trotz oder wegen des ganzen Wirbels soll es nun einen weiteren Erkundungsgang geben. “Der Vorstand des NSA-Spion-Schutzbundes lädt Sie recht herzlich zum zweiten Entdecken und Beobachten Wochenende am Dagger Complex ein”, heißt es in einer öffentlichen Einladung auf Facebook.

Ein Picknick auf der Straße

Schließlich war die letzte demonstrative Entdeckertour zwar ein großer Medienerfolg, vom “wissenschaftlichen” Standpunkt aus gesehen aber ein Reinfall: “Ein Teil der Gruppe hat mit allerlei Lockrufen versucht, die NSA-Spione aus ihrem Bau zu locken”, schreibt Bangert in einem Rückblick auf Facebook. Leider habe man aber “keine echten NSA-Spione zu sehen” bekommen. Deshalb wolle man dieses Mal “im Anschluss an den Spaziergang ein Picknick auf der Straße vor dem Dagger Complex machen”. Vielleicht ließen sich die Spione ja “durch den Duft diverser Köstlichkeiten aus ihrem Bau locken”.

Es sollen wieder viele Kameras mitgebracht werden, Papier und Stift, Verpflegung fürs Picknick und Blumen, “um den Lebensraum der NSA-Spione etwas aufzupeppen”. Verkleidungen sind erwünscht, und Theaterrequisiten, etwa in Form von Edward-Snowden-Masken, sind ausdrücklich erlaubt.

Klingt alles wie beim letzten Mal – nur dürften sich diesmal wohl ein paar mehr spazierende Demonstranten einfinden, die aus den Medien vom Wirbel um den ersten Erkundungsgang erfahren haben. Deshalb steht in der aktuellen Einladung außerdem: Der Spaziergang und das anschließende Picknick seien selbstverständlich angemeldet.

Die Teilnehmerzahl ist nicht abzuschätzen

“Wie viele Teilnehmer es werden, ist völlig unberechenbar”, sagt Initiator Daniel Bangert, “das habe ich auch der Polizei gesagt: Es können 50 werden oder auch 1000, wobei ich das nicht glaube.” Er habe diesmal Kooperationsgespräche geführt, und wieder sei der Staatsschutz dabei gewesen, erzählt er. Auch wenn das womöglich in Darmstadt so üblich sei, irritiere ihn das.

Trotzdem tut er sich den ganzen Stress gern an, angefangen bei den Formalitäten bis hin zu den Fragen der vielen Journalisten. “Ich finde einfach, dass da bei den Leuten mehr Interesse herrschen könnte”, begründet er seine Motivation. Und seine Geschichte zeige doch, “dass ein Einzelner sehr wohl etwas erreichen kann, auch ohne Mittel”.

Ansonsten hofft er auf ein bisschen Hilfe durch die anderen selbsternannten Spion-Forscher: Es stünden mehr Ordner zur Verfügung; doch es wäre gut, wenn ein paar Teilnehmer Warnwesten mitbrächten.

19. Juli 2013, 14:19 Uhr
Von Judith Horchert

Find this story at 19 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

A German man who called on Facebook friends concerned about American secret service operations to join him in a walk around a US army spy centre near his home, found secret service men at his door checking his political leanings.

Daniel Bangert, 28, told The Local he had joked about US spies reading what he had written – and had even told his friends he was waiting for a knock on the door – when it actually came.

“I was still very sleepy when the phone rang – it was 7.17 in the morning – and a police officer started asking questions about what I was planning,” he said.

“Then the doorbell rang and I saw out the window that a police van was parked outside. The officer on the phone said I should open the door to the others.”

He put on a “Team Edward” T-shirt with a picture of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, and answered scores of questions about his plans.

Bangert, a veteran of the Blockupy protests in Frankfurt, had set up a group calling itself “NSA spy protection league” (NSA Spion Schutzbund), as if the US spies were an endangered species of birds.

He wanted, he said, to take a walk with some friends to “observe them in their natural habitat” – the Dagger Complex in Griesheim near Darmstadt. This is one base where the NSA (US National Security Agency) is said to operate from. The authority stands accused of monitoring much of Germany’s internet traffic.

The uniformed police seemed satisfied with his answers about the expected number of people on the walk – 32 had shown an interest, Bangert told The Local. But despite there being no specific agenda, and no plans for a rally or speeches, he was told he had to register the event.

“I asked them why, but they could not really explain it to me. They couldn’t help me understand what the difference was between going for a walk and meeting up to play football – which you don’t have to register,” he said.

A few hours later, his phone rang again, and one of the police officers who had been at his house that morning, told him the state security wanted to talk with him.

“She said I should call them, that it was important that I did. So I did, and they asked me again about the Facebook entry, and how many people were expected and so on. Then they asked if I would go to see them or if they could come to see me for a personal conversation.”

He said a state security agent arrived with a local police officer, and asked him a load of questions about his political activities and his opinions, and whether he had any connection to activists willing to use violence. They suggested his Facebook entry could be interpreted in different ways, but he said he was really just organizing a walk.

“Then they told me I should not put the meeting on the internet, that I should not write about it,” he added.

They seemed to be concerned that the walk could get out of control if lots of people showed up – like the Facebook parties which are hijacked by hoodlums. “But I was not offering anything for free like at the parties,” he said.

“And in any case, all there is, is a fence, with nothing behind it – everything is underground. No-one is interested.”

In the end around 80 people showed up on Saturday to take a walk, have a talk and look at the US base.

The “NSA spy protection league” Facebook page says of the day: “A group of people young and old gathered at the Griesheim market square and walked to the NSA spy complex, in the most fabulous weather. On the way there, surveillance methods were discussed … and possible behaviour of the NSA spies was the subject of consideration.”

It said some of the group had tried with various calls to tempt the NSA spies from the building, but none showed themselves. “Taking part in the walk was not enough, just to know that NSA spies are there – everyone agreed they wanted to see NSA spies with their own eyes. We will see what we can do.”

Hannah Cleaver
Published: 15 Jul 2013 17:44 CET | Print version

Find this story at 15 July 2013

© The Local Europe GmbH

The internet is being snooped on and CCTV is everywhere. How did we come to accept that this is just the way things are?

These days we are all supects, or at least consumers. Photograph: Alamy

America controls the sky. Fear of what America might do can make countries divert planes – all because Edward Snowden might be on one.

Owning the sky has somehow got to me more than controlling the internet. Maybe because I am a simpleton and sometimes can only process what I can see – the actual sky, rather than invisible cyberspace in which data blips through fibre-optic cables.

Thus the everyday internet remains opaque to all but geeks. And that’s where I think I have got it wrong. My first reaction to the Prism leaks was to make stupid jokes: Spies spy? Who knew? The fact that Snowden looked as if he came from central casting didn’t help. Nor did the involvement of Julian Assange, a cult leader who should be in Sweden instead of a cupboard in an embassy.

What I failed to grasp, though, was quite how much I had already surrendered my liberty, not just personally but my political ideals about what liberty means. I simply took for granted that everyone can see everything and laughed at the idea that Obama will be looking at my pictures of a cat dressed as a lobster. I was resigned to the fact that some random FBI merchant will wonder at the inane and profane nature of my drunken tweets.

Slowly but surely, The Lives of Others have become ours. CCTV cameras everywhere watch us, so we no longer watch out for each other. Public space is controlled. Of course, much CCTV footage is never seen and often useless. But we don’t need the panopticon once we have built one in our own minds. We are all suspects.

Or at least consumers. iTunes thinks I might like Bowie; Amazon thinks I want a compact tumble dryer. Really? Facebook seems to think I want to date men in uniform. I revel in the fact that the algorithms get it as wrong as the man who knocks on my door selling fish out of a van. “And not just fish,” as he sometimes says mysteriously.

But how did I come to accept that all this data gathered about me is just the way it is? Wasn’t I once interested in civil liberties? Indeed, weren’t the Lib Dems? Didn’t freedom somehow incorporate the idea of individual privacy? When the state monitored all its citizens as though they were suspects – whether in East Germany or North Korea – we called it authoritarianism. Now we think it is what keeps us safe.

In 2009 I sat on a panel with Vince Cable at the cross-party Convention on Modern Liberty. Cable told us that a recession could provide the preconditions for fascism. Gosh, I thought, that’s a bit strong. Then the recession hit and austerity became the narrative that subsumed all debates about freedom. No one poor is free, and it is no coincidence that the poor are the most snooped on of all.

What Snowden, who is no spy, has revealed is the nature of the game: that surveillance is a huge private industry; that almost full control of the internet has been achieved already; that politicians here and in the US have totally acquiesced to industrial-scale snooping. There is a generation now made up of people who will never have had a private conversation online or by phone. These are my children. And should they or anyone else want to organise against the powers that be, they will be traceable. We have sleepwalked into this because liberty remains such an alien concept, still. But the US has the fourth amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.”

It has been violated. Bradley Manning is in prison, Guantánamo remains open, CIA agents who spoke out about waterboarding are banged up. And there are other kinds of whistleblowers who conveniently kill themselves. The letter from Daniel Somers, who served in Iraq, says he was made to do things he could not live with. He described his suicide as a mercy killing and reminded us that 22 veterans kill themselves every day. This is not whistleblowing. It is screaming into a void.

But we remain passive while other European countries are angry at what Snowden has told us. We maintain the special relationship. For Snowden, the truth will not set him free, it will imprison him for ever. We now debate whether we should exchange liberty for security, but it is too late. As John Locke said: “As soon as men decide all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil they set out to destroy.” He could have been talking about our passivity.

When did you surrender your freedom to communicate, something that was yours and yours alone, whether an email to a lover or a picture of your child? Ask yourself, do you feel safer now you know that you have no secrets? Now, the intimacies that are of no import to anyone but you have been subject to virtual extraordinary rendition. Because, fundamentally, your government does not trust you. Why therefore should you trust it?

Suzanne Moore
The Guardian, Wednesday 3 July 2013 20.00 BST

Find this story at 3 July 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON — Intelligence officials refer to Edward J. Snowden’s job as a National Security Agency contractor as “systems administrator” — a bland name for the specialists who keep the computers humming. But his last job before leaking classified documents about N.S.A. surveillance, he told the news organization The Guardian, was actually “infrastructure analyst.”

It is a title that officials have carefully avoided mentioning, perhaps for fear of inviting questions about the agency’s aggressive tactics: an infrastructure analyst at the N.S.A., like a burglar casing an apartment building, looks for new ways to break into Internet and telephone traffic around the world.

That assignment helps explain how Mr. Snowden got hold of documents laying bare the top-secret capabilities of the nation’s largest intelligence agency, setting off a far-reaching political and diplomatic crisis for the Obama administration.

Even as some members of Congress have challenged the N.S.A.’s collection of logs of nearly every phone call Americans make, European officials furiously protested on Sunday after Mr. Snowden’s disclosure that the N.S.A. has bugged European Union offices in Washington and Brussels and, with its British counterpart, has tapped the Continent’s major fiber-optic communications cables.

On Sunday evening, The Guardian posted an article saying documents leaked by Mr. Snowden show 38 embassies and missions on a list of United States electronic surveillance targets. Some of those offices belong to allies like France, Italy, Japan and Mexico, The Guardian said.

Mr. Snowden, who planned his leaks for at least a year, has said he took the infrastructure analyst position with Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii in March, evidently taking a pay cut, to gain access to a fresh supply of documents.

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the N.S.A. hacked,” he told The South China Morning Post before leaving Hong Kong a week ago for Moscow, where he has been in limbo in the transit area of Sheremetyevo airport. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

A close reading of Mr. Snowden’s documents shows the extent to which the eavesdropping agency now has two new roles: It is a data cruncher, with an appetite to sweep up, and hold for years, a staggering variety of information. And it is an intelligence force armed with cyberweapons, assigned not just to monitor foreign computers but also, if necessary, to attack.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the documents suggest, the N.S.A. decided it was too risky to wait for leads on specific suspects before going after relevant phone and Internet records. So it followed the example of the hoarder who justifies stacks of paper because someday, somehow, a single page could prove vitally important.

The agency began amassing databases of “metadata” — logs of all telephone calls collected from the major carriers and similar data on e-mail traffic. The e-mail program was halted in 2011, though it appears possible that the same data is now gathered in some other way.

The documents show that America’s phone and Internet companies grew leery of N.S.A. demands as the years passed after 9/11, fearing that customers might be angry to find out their records were shared with the government. More and more, the companies’ lawyers insisted on legal orders to compel them to comply.

So the N.S.A. came up with a solution: store the data itself. That is evidently what gave birth to a vast data storage center that the N.S.A. is building in Utah, exploiting the declining cost of storage and the advance of sophisticated search software.

Those huge databases were once called “bit buckets” in the industry — collections of electronic bits waiting to be sifted. “They park stuff in storage in the hopes that they will eventually have time to get to it,” said James Lewis, a cyberexpert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “or that they’ll find something that they need to go back and look for in the masses of data.” But, he added, “most of it sits and is never looked at by anyone.”

Indeed, an obscure passage in one of the Snowden documents — rules for collecting Internet data that the Obama administration wrote in secret in 2009 and that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved — suggested that the government was concerned about its ability to process all the data it was collecting. So it got the court to approve an exception allowing the government to hold on to that information if it could not keep up. The rules said that “the communications that may be retained” for up to five years “include electronic communications acquired because of the limitation on the N.S.A.’s ability to filter communications.”

As one private expert who sometimes advises the N.S.A. on this technology put it: “This means that if you can’t desalinate all the seawater at once, you get to hold on to the ocean until you figure it out.”

Collecting that ocean requires the brazen efforts of tens of thousands of technicians like Mr. Snowden. On Thursday, President Obama played down Mr. Snowden’s importance, perhaps concerned that the manhunt was itself damaging the image and diplomatic relations of the United States. “No, I’m not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker,” the president said during a stop in Senegal.

Mr. Obama presumably meant the term to be dismissive, suggesting that Mr. Snowden (who turned 30 on June 21) was a young computer delinquent. But as an N.S.A. infrastructure analyst, Mr. Snowden was, in a sense, part of the United States’ biggest and most skilled team of hackers.

The N.S.A., Mr. Snowden’s documents show, has worked with its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, to tap into hundreds of fiber-optic cables that cross the Atlantic or go on into Europe, with the N.S.A. helping sort the data. The disclosure revived old concerns that the British might be helping the N.S.A. evade American privacy protections, an accusation that American officials flatly deny.

And a secret presidential directive on cyberactivities unveiled by Mr. Snowden — discussing the primary new task of the N.S.A. and its military counterpart, Cyber Command — makes clear that when the agency’s technicians probe for vulnerabilities to collect intelligence, they also study foreign communications and computer systems to identify potential targets for a future cyberwar.

Infrastructure analysts like Mr. Snowden, in other words, are not just looking for electronic back doors into Chinese computers or Iranian mobile networks to steal secrets. They have a new double purpose: building a target list in case American leaders in a future conflict want to wipe out the computers’ hard drives or shut down the phone system.

Mr. Snowden’s collection of pilfered N.S.A. documents has cast an awkward light on officials’ past assurances to Congress and the public about their concern about Americans’ privacy.

It was only in March that James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told a Senate committee that the N.S.A. did not collect data on millions of Americans. Mr. Snowden’s records forced Mr. Clapper to backtrack, admitting his statement was false.

Last week, two senators challenged even the accuracy of a fact sheet prepared by the N.S.A. to counter Mr. Snowden’s claims about the phone data and Internet collection programs. Agency officials did not defend themselves; the fact sheet simply disappeared, without explanation, from the agency’s Web site.

Newly disclosed slides from an N.S.A. PowerPoint presentation on the agency’s Prism database of Internet data, posted on Saturday by The Washington Post, reveal that the F.B.I. plays a role as middleman between the N.S.A. and Internet companies like Google and Yahoo. The arrangement provides the N.S.A. with a defense, however nominal, against claims that it spies on United States soil.

Even in the unaccustomed spotlight after the N.S.A. revelations, intelligence officials have concealed more than they have revealed in careful comments, fearful of alerting potential eavesdropping targets to agency methods. They invariably discuss the N.S.A.’s role in preventing terrorist attacks, an agency priority that the public can easily grasp.

In fact, as Mr. Snowden’s documents have shown, the omnivorous agency’s operations range far beyond terrorism, targeting foreigners of any conceivable interest. British eavesdroppers working with the N.S.A. penetrated London meetings of the Group of 20 industrialized nations, partly by luring delegates to fake Internet cafes, and the N.S.A. hacked into computers at Chinese universities.

At Fort Meade, on the N.S.A.’s heavily guarded campus off the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in Maryland, such disclosures are seen as devastating tip-offs to targets. The disclosure in Mr. Snowden’s documents that Skype is cooperating with orders to turn over data to the N.S.A., for example, undermined a widespread myth that the agency could not intercept the voice-over-Internet service. Warned, in effect, by Mr. Snowden, foreign officials, drug cartel leaders and terrorists may become far more careful about how, and how much, they communicate.

“We’re seeing indications that several terrorist groups are changing their communications behavior based on these disclosures,” one intelligence official said last week, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We’re going to miss tidbits that could be useful in stopping the next plot.”

Mr. Snowden’s breach is an unplanned test of the N.S.A.’s decades-old conviction that it can operate effectively only under absolute secrecy. The agency is conducting a damage assessment — a routine step after major leaks — but the assessment itself is likely to remain classified.

The N.S.A.’s assessment of Mr. Snowden’s case will likely also consider what has become, for intelligence officials, a chilling consideration: there are thousands of people of his generation and computer skills at the agency, hired in recent years to keep up with the communications boom.

The officials fear that some of them, like young computer aficionados outside the agency, might share Mr. Snowden’s professed libertarian streak and skepticism of the government’s secret power. Intelligence bosses are keeping a closer eye on them now, hoping that there is not another self-appointed whistle-blower in their midst.

June 30, 2013
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID E. SANGER

Find this story at 30 June 2013

© 2013 The New York Times Company

Postscript ||: Our Government has No Right to Hide Its Actions

This is a guest post by Jesse Stavis, another one of the students at the NSA session. The first postscript by me (Madiha) available below.

My name is Jesse Stavis. I’m a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literature at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and I was the male student in the recording. Madiha has graciously invited me to share some final thoughts on our confrontation with the NSA. I’ll try to keep this brief:

1. I have never been involved in anything that’s come anywhere close to receiving the exposure that this incident has. I will admit that it was exciting to see this story go quasi-viral. The fact that comments that were made in a room with perhaps twenty audience members eventually reached hundreds of thousands of people speaks to the power that the internet has as a tool for political and social advocacy. This should remind us of why it’s so important to protect the openness of the internet and the privacy of our communications on it.

2. A few days after this story broke, my feelings of excitement and pride in what we had accomplished gave way to a lingering feeling of depression. To put it bluntly, this should not have been a big story. The big story should have been about congressional representatives asking tough questions of the people at the top levels of the NSA. We should have been reading about Lt. Gen. Clapper being investigated for perjury. The fact that a few graduate students peppering recruiters with tough questions received so much attention speaks to the utterly dysfunctional condition of our political system as a whole and of the Democratic Party in particular.

3. While most people have been supportive of what we did, a number of commenters have suggested that we were wrong to confront low-level employees who were just doing their job. I want to make one thing clear: These were not low-level employees. They were what I would describe as upper mid-level managers. They told us that they had a combined fifty-five years of experience at the NSA. Without the support and consent of people like this, the surveillance machine could not exist. I don’t think that they are stupid people or evil people. I do think that they are people who have abdicated their moral agency and thus allowed for something very scary and very evil to come into existence. It’s our responsibility as educated citizens to remind these people that they do have the power to effect real change.

4. A number of people have written that they wished that there were a video recording of this event. I’m not so sure that they would have liked what they would have seen. They would have seen three people aggressively challenging the recruiters while fifteen or twenty other people who were actually considering working at the NSA sat stone-faced and bored, waiting for this unfortunate interruption to end. They would have seen the high school teacher sitting next to me muttering through a clenched jaw about how indescribably rude we were being. They would have seen just how much more we have to accomplish when it comes to convincing our fellow citizens that our government has no right to hide its actions from its citizens.

5. Finally, at the risk of stating the obvious, I want to make it clear that I take very little credit for anything that was accomplished at that meeting. Without someone as brave, informed, and articulate as Madiha Tahir, this wouldn’t have been a story at all. I am deeply, deeply impressed by her, and I hope that you are too.
Tagged government, nsa, prism, surveillance

Jul 07 2013
32 Comments
Multitudes, The Terror Wars
Postscript: The Present through a PRISM

See also guest post by Jesse Stavis

Since I posted about our engagement with NSA recruiters who were visiting the campus at the Univ of

Good Muslim anyone? (Internal flap of NSA brochure)

Wisconsin, I’ve been inundated with hundreds upon hundreds of tweets, emails and messages from people, both Americans, but also folks from Germany, the UK, France, Pakistan and elsewhere. They have been overwhelmingly positive, heartfelt messages (with a few nastier comments thrown in, but I imagine that is par for the course). I’ve tried my best to keep up and respond to, and/or acknowledge the messages in some way, but once again: Thank you for all of your messages of support.

It has been inspiring for us to hear from all of you!

When we posed our questions to the NSA recruiters, we did not expect to go viral. But some time soon after tweeting out my post, my blog crashed. So did the blog PrivacySOS (follow @onekade!) who had posted about it. By next afternoon, Huffpo had picked it up. Numerous blogs, local sites and news sites also reported the story including: Business Insider, The Guardian, Firedoglake, Sueddeutsche Zeitung (the largest German-language daily in Germany), WORT Radio, NBC15 (Wisconsin’s local channel which also features Jesse Stavis @tolstoved. Means one who studies Tolstoy), one of the other students who spoke), WeAct Radio, Isthmus, Wisconsin Reporter, Wonkette, ActivistPost, Daily Kos and Truthdig, among others. There have been some Youtube videos posted as well.

I’ve made the audio downloadable as per several requests.

Here, I want to add some things I left out in my initial post (because I wasn’t expecting so many people to read it), make some corrections, and finally make some notes on a few things I thought were interesting:

1. The recruiters in question were seasoned employees of the NSA, not newbies. They told us that together, they had 55 years of experience with the NSA. The female recruiter worked on South Asia and implied that she was in a senior position in that office. That was the impression others I’ve spoken with also had. The male recruiter worked on China and Korea.

2. Anybody can be an “adversary.” That means foreign governments, allies, and American citizens. Anyone can become an adversary at any time as far as the American government is concerned. That means OWS anarchists, socialists, activists and leftists of various stripes, environmentalists or just stupid kids. That means Anwar al-Awlaki because his opinions were reprehensible, or his teenage son –also an American citizen– who was killed in a drone attack just because, or Tarek Mehanna, or Fahad Hashmi, or the Muslim Students’ Association, or Muslims generally, or me or you. As Atlantic Wire reported last month,

And the NSA would never abuse its awesome surveillance power, right? Wrong. In 2008, NSA workers told ABC News that they routinely eavesdropped on phone sex between troops serving overseas and their loved ones in America. They listened in on both satellite phone calls and calls from the phone banks in Iraq’s Green Zone where soldiers call home. Former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk described how a coworker would say, “Hey, check this out… there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out.” Faulk explained they would gossip about the best calls during breaks. “It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy.’”

In a word: creepy. But, what’s more worrisome to me than the eavesdropping on the pillow talk of American troops is the differential burden that the surveillance state levies on the marginalized. For example, it is not accidental that the names on my little list above are largely Muslim. When bureaucrats or the government or the police are managing large populations, they narrow down categories of presumed suspects through racial profiling. That is why stop-and-frisk disproportionately

Sent to me by dminkler.com

affects African-Americans and Latinos. And, it’s the same reason why –when hunting for ‘terrorists’– American security forces obsess over Islam, and the mainstream media tends to present Muslims as the face of terror even though white hate groups are on the rise. In fact in 2009, conservatives so heavily criticized the Department of Homeland Security when it “reported that white supremacy is the US’s biggest threat for domestic terror” (ThinkProgress) that Janet Napolitano ended up withdrawing its report.

So, there’s a racial politics to the surveillance state. The marginalized, poor and non-white are likely to bear the brunt of the state’s violence. But, in the end, it affects the entire social space. First of all, it has a chilling effect on dissent, particularly in these communities.

Secondly, for the police or the FBI or the NSA or the drones to come for some of us requires that the rest of us agree or at least, remain silent. I think that silence is produced: through the jingoism of television whether it’s the evening news or shows like NCIS, 24, or Homeland as well as through attacks on education, research and dissent. Finally, there are all the smaller ways of disciplining people into silence, things we even do to each other. You are told it’s rude to ask questions. This is not the right time. This is not the right space. Those are not the right people. Shut up. Shut up. SHUT UP.

That kind of social space kills independent thought. It produces thinking that is vehemently opposed to asking questions of NSA recruiters and by extension, the state. Such thinking is more angered by the whistle-blowing than what it reveals. To paraphrase a dead French guy badly, the surveillance state has to change people/populations into the kind of group that basically remains silent. That is what is needed first in order to make the unthinkable possible and finally, normal.

This is why, when they come for some of us, they actually come for all of us.

Therefore, a critical response can only succeed if it is able to understand the entire structure as a whole, that is, as long as we continue to draw distinctions between people that ought to be surveilled and those that should not be surveilled, we will fail. The point –and the real test– is learning to stand in solidarity with people who are not like you or me or us.

3. “The globe is our playground.” A little nugget of honesty about the worldview of the intelligence and military community.

4. They are just doing their jobs. I’m not sure why this is a defense. It didn’t work at Nuremberg. And, it shouldn’t work now. This is not to compare what is happening now as somehow equal to or better or worse than the German holocaust, but to underscore a philosophical point Hannah Arendt made about the nature of modern evil: It’s banal. That means it hasn’t got a pitchfork or horns sprouting out of its head. Rather, it is thousands of ordinary people just doing their jobs.

The question of whether they are “good” people and love their families or “bad” people is irrelevant here. The routinization of such work into small tasks turns the victims of that work into an

Sent to me by dminkler.com

abstraction or a mathematical problem for the people-just-doing-their-jobs. (Thanks to a commenter at the Guardian, the prior link is to a discussion of how the NSA reconfigures issues into an abstract mathematical problem that is then handed over to its mathematicians –none of whom actually know the real-world ‘problem’ that they are working on or to what end their mathematical solutions will be applied. For another instance, take the discussion of drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. In the mainstream media, it is a discussion that lacks imagination and has been reduced to counting up the dead and categorizing them as “civilian” or “militant” –effectively turning it into a numbers problem: are we killing more of the “bad” ones than the “good” ones or vice versa? Needless to say, this is a terrible, even a horrifying kind of question.)

So, some people go on just doing their jobs and other people go on not asking questions for fear of appearing rude (Jesse talks about how the high school teacher sitting next to him during the session kept muttering about our ‘rudeness’), enraged, irrational, naive. This is how, together, we build monsters.

What has struck me about the anti-war movement in America in these last few years –perhaps it is different elsewhere and perhaps it was different before– is generally how polite it has been. How ironic to chant, “Whose streets! Our streets!” while politely walking into pens and free speech zones. How strange to demand an end to the war while politely conceding to the demands of the NYPD that protesters not use Central Park, that they only march on these streets and not those streets so that order can be maintained, so that things can carry on as if there were no protest at all. I am not arguing for blind rage, but I think anger –articulate, politically engaged, critically minded anger that holds the line– can be a virtue in these times.

5. Edward Snowden should’ve stuck it out instead of “running away.” This is interesting to me because I think this speaks to a kind of Christian imaginary: the hero as martyr, like Jesus, who should hang on the cross. That is apparently what will redeem the worth of these revelations. I am not saying that the people who make this claim are Christian; I am only observing that long after secularization, forms of Christian thought and habit hang around, and I think this is one of them. It is a very specific kind of typology for a hero, and one that only makes sense in a context where people (whether they be actually Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or atheists or whatever) are habituated to the idea of Jesus’ martyrdom for our redemption. It’s out there in the social space. Hell, think about the end of Harry Potter.

6. To the people telling me to grow up, I’m 5 ft 1.75 inches, and I’m pretty sure I’m not growing any taller. And to those wondering if I’m a “foreigner,” well, if I am one, so are you. I do get how my name trips up your black-and-white world though. If it helps, you can call me Maddie.

Some links I thought were worth sharing:

Prism Break

Restore the Fourth

Mass Surveillance in America: A Timeline

Let’s not forget about the corporations who surveil us too.

PRISM by the numbers

Security Data-Mining and Other Forms of Witchcraft

Finally, once again thank you so much for your messages. It has been inspiring for us.

Onwards!
Tagged europe, muslims, nsa, race, secrecy, surveillance

Jul 02 2013
336 Comments
Multitudes, The Terror Wars
The NSA Comes Recruiting

Some students and I had an exchange with NSA recruiters today. The audio and a rough transcript below.

The NSA came to recruit at a language program at the University of Wisconsin where I am spending my summer learning a language. Two recruiters, a redhead who looked more like a middle-aged mother (listed as “NSA_F” below) and a portly, balding man (“NSA_M”), began to go through slides explaining the NSA and its work.

I had intended to go simply to hear how the NSA is recruiting at a moment when it’s facing severe challenges, what with the Edward Snowden and all. Dismayingly, however, a local high school teacher had thought it was good to bring 5 of his students to the session. They were smartly dressed, some of them even wearing ties as if there might be a job interview, young faces in a classroom of graduate students. They sat across from me at the roundtable. It was really their presence that goaded me–and I think a couple of other students–into an interaction with the recruiters.

Roughly half an hour into the session, the exchange below began. I began by asking them how they understood the term “adversary” since the surveillance seems to be far beyond those the American state classifies as enemies, and their understanding of that ties into the recruiters’ earlier statement that “the globe is our playground.” I ended up asking them whether being a liar was a qualification for the NSA because:

@Madi_Hatter a 2008 slideshow for college seniors considering CIA careers asked potential applicants: “Are you good at manipulating people?”

— David Mehnert (@Savants) July 2, 2013

The NSA’s instrumental understanding of language as well as its claustrophobic social world was readily apparent. One of the recruiters discussed how they tend to socialize after work, dressing up in costumes and getting drunk (referenced below). I can imagine that also exerts a lot of social pressure and works as a kind of social closure from which it would be difficult to escape. The last thing I want to point out –once again– their defense seems to be that it’s legal. What is legal is not just.

Someone else happened to record it on an iPhone, hence the audio quality. It’s been edited mainly to cut garbled audio or audio that wouldn’t have made sense and edit out questions and comments from people who didn’t explicitly say it was ok to post their audio.You’ll hear the sound drop out for a second to mark the cuts.

Rough Transcript

Me: You said earlier that the two tasks that you do: one is tracking down the communications of your adversaries and the other is protecting the communications of officials. So, do you consider Germany and the countries the US has been spying on to be adversaries or are you, right now, not speaking the truth?

Me: I mean do you consider European countries, etc, adversaries or are you, right now, not telling us the truth and lying when you say that actually you simply track – you keep focusing on that, but clearly the NSA is doing a lot more than that, as we know, so I’m just asking for a clarification.

NSA_F: I’m focusing on what our foreign intelligence requires of [garbled] so, I mean you know, You can define adversary as enemy and clearly, Germany is not our enemy but would we have foreign
national interest from an intelligence perspective on what’s going on across the globe. Yeah, we do. That’s our requirements that come to us as an intelligence community organization from the policymakers, from the military, from whoever –our global so–

Me: So adversary –adversaries you actually mean anybody and everybody. There’s nobody then by your definition that is not an adversary. Is that correct?

NSA_F: That is not correct.

Me: Who is not an adversary?

NSA_F: Well, ok. I can answer your questions but the reality is—

Me: No, I’m just trying to get a clarification because you told us what the two nodes of your work are but it’s not clear to me what that encompasses and you’re being fairly unclear at the moment. Apparently it’s somebody who’s not just an enemy. It’s something broader than that. And yet, it doesn’t seem to encompass everyone.

NSA_M: So for us, umm, our business is apolitical. Ok. We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They are levied on us so, if there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue or this region or whatever then that is. If you wanna use the word adversary, you ca– we

This is not a tampon.

might use the word ‘target.’ That is what we are going after. That is the intelligence target that we are going after because we were given that requirement. Whether that’s adversary in a global war on terrorism sense or adversary in terms of national security interests or whatever – that’s for policymakers, I guess to make that determination. We respond to the requirements we are given, if that helps. And there’s a separation. As language analysts, we work on the SIG INT side of the house. We don’t really work on the information assurance (?) side of the house. That’s the guy setting up, protecting our communications.

Me: I’m just surprised that for language analysts, you’re incredibly imprecise with your language. And it just doesn’t seem to be clear. So, adversary is basically what any of your so-called “customers” as you call them –which is also a strange term to use for a government agency– decide if anybody wants, any part of the government wants something about some country, suddenly they are now internally considered or termed an ‘adversary.’ That’s what you seem to be saying.

[Pause]

NSA_M: I’m saying you can think about it using that term.

NSA_F: But the reality is it’s our government’s interest in what a foreign government or foreign country is doing.

Me: Right. So adversary can be anyone.

NSA_M: As long as they levy their requirement on us thru the right vehicle that exists for this and that it is defined in terms of a foreign intelligence requirement, there’s a national framework of foreign intelligence – what’s it called?

NSA_F: nipa

NSA_M: the national prioritization of intelligence framework or whatever that determines these are the issues that we are interested in, these are how they are prioritized.

Me: Your slide said adversary. It might be a bit better to say “target” but it’s not just a word game. The problem is these countries are fairly –I think Afghanistan is probably not shocked to realize they’re on the list. I think Germany seems to be quite shocked at what has been going on. This is not just a word game and you understand that as well as I do. So, it’s very strange that you’re selling yourself here in one particular fashion when it’s absolutely not true.

NSA_F: I don’t think we’re selling ourselves in an untrue fashion.

Me: Well, this is a recruiting session and you are telling us things that aren’t true. We also know that the NSA took down brochures and fact sheets after the Snowden revelations because those brochures also had severe inaccuracies and untruths in them. So, how are we supposed to believe what you’re saying?

[pause]

Student A (female): I have a lifestyle question that you seem to be selling. It sounds more like a colonial expedition. You know the “globe is our playground” is the words you used, the phrasing that you used and you seem to be saying that you can do your work. You can analyze said documents for your so-called customers but then you can go and get drunk and dress up and have fun without thinking of the repercussions of the info you’re analyzing has on the rest of the world. I also want to know what are the qualifications that one needs to become a whistleblower because that sounds like a much more interesting job. And I think the Edward Snowdens and the Bradley Mannings and Julian Assanges of the world will prevail ultimately.

NSA_M: I’m not sure what the –

Me: The question here is do you actually think about the ramifications of the work that you do, which is deeply problematic, or do you just dress up in costumes and get drunk? [This is in reference to an earlier comment made by the recruiters in which NSA_F said: they do heady work and then they go down to the bar and dress up in costume and do karaoke. I tweeted it earlier.]

NSA_M: That’s why, as I was saying, reporting the info in the right context is so important because the consequences of bad political decisions by our policymakers is something we all suffer from.

Student A: And people suffer from the misinformation that you pass along so you should take responsibility as well.

NSA_M: We take it very seriously that when we give info to our policy makers that we do give it to them in the right context so that they can make the best decision with the best info available.

Student B: Is that what Clapper was doing when he perjured himself in front of Congress? Was he giving accurate information when he said we do not collect any intelligence on the US citizens that it’s only occasionally unintentionally or was he perjuring himself when he made a statement before Congress under oath that he later declared to be erroneous or at least, untruthful the least truthful answer? How do you feel personally having a boss whose comfortable perjuring himself in front of Congress?

NSA_F: Our director is not general Clapper.

Student B: General Alexander also lied in front of Congress.

NSA_F: I don’t know about that.

Student B: Probably because access to the Guardian is restricted on the NSA’s computers. I am sure they don’t encourage people like you to actually think about these things. Thank God for a man like Edward Snowden who your organization is now part of a manhunt trying to track down, trying to put him in a little hole somewhere for the rest of his life. Thank god they exist.

Student A: and why are you denigrating anything else with language? We don’t do this; we don’t do that; we don’t read cultural artifacts, poetry? There are other things to do with language other than joining this group, ok. [last line of this comment was directed at the high school students.]

NSA_M: This job is not for everybody. Academia is a great career for people with language.

Me: So is this job for liars? Is this what you’re saying? Because, clearly, you’re not able to give us forthright answers. Given the way the way the NSA has behaved, given the fact that we’ve been lied to as Americans, given the fact that fact sheets have been pulled down because they clearly had untruths in them, given the fact that Clapper and Alexander lied to Congress — is that a qualification for being in the NSA? Do you have to be a good liar?

NSA_F: I don’t consider myself to be a liar in any fashion and the reality is I mean, this was billed as if you are potentially interested in an NSA career come to our session. If you’re not, if this is your personal belief and you’re understanding of what has been presented then there is nothing that says you need to come and apply and work for us. We are not here — our role as NSA employees is not to represent NSA the things that are in the press right now about the NSA. That’s not our role at all. That’s not my area of expertise. I have not read–

Me: Right, but you’re here recruiting so you’re selling the organization. I mean I’m less interested in what your specialized role is within in the NSA. I don’t care. The fact is you’re here presenting a public face for the NSA and you’re trying to sell the organization to people that are as young as high schoolers and trying to tell us that this is an attractive option in a context in which we clearly know that the NSA has been telling us complete lies. So, I’m wondering is that a qualification?

NSA_F: I don’t believe the NSA is telling complete lies. And I do believe that you know, people can, you can read a lot of different things that are portrayed as fact and that doesn’t make them fact just because they’re in newspapers.

Student A: Or intelligence reports.

NSA_F: That’s not really our purpose here today and I think if you’re not interested in that. There are people here who are probably interested in a language career.

Me: The trouble is we can’t opt out of NSA surveillance and we don’t get answers. It’s not an option. You’re posing it as a choice like ‘oh you know people who are interested can just sit here and those of us who are not interested can just leave.’ If I could opt out of NSA surveillance and it was no longer my business, that would be fine. But it is my business because all of us are being surveilled so we’re here.

NSA_F: That is incorrect. That is not our job. That is not our business.

Me: That doesn’t seem to be incorrect given the leaks. Right, and the NSA has not been able to actually put out anything that is convincing or contrary to that.

[pause]

Student A: I don’t understand what’s wrong with having some accountability.

NSA_F: We have complete accountability and there is absolutely nothing that we can or have done without approval of the 3 branches of the government. The programs that we’re enacting–

Student B: Did you read the NY Times? Did you read about the illegal wiretapping? Why are you lying?

NSA_M: Did you read the Senate judiciary report that said there have only been 15 (?) instances, and they were all documented and done correctly by the FISA courts–

Student B: I’d love to read the opinion of the FISA court that says that this program one of the NSA’s programs was violating the 4th amendment right of massive amounts of Americans, but it’s a big ‘ol secret and only people like you who will not talk with their wives when they get home about what they do all day are able to…[garbled]…protecting us from the ‘terrorist threat’, but let’s let everyone here hear more information about karaoke.

Find this story at 8 July 2013