Thoughtful, detailed coverage of the Mac, iPhone, and iPad, plus the TidBITS Content Network for Apple consultants.

Keeping Up with the Snoops 4: When the Going Gets Weird…

Things are getting weird in Spyville as we once again keep up with the snoops. How weird? In a word: UFOs. No, I’m not kidding.

As reported by The Intercept, the new media partnership between reporter Glenn Greenwald and billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, the GCHQ (the British counterpart to the NSA) has been actively falsifying information to discredit targets who haven’t even been charged with a crime. The techniques, called Online Covert Action (OCA), involve writing fake blog posts claiming to be victims of the target, emailing and texting those close to the target, changing the target’s photos on social media sites, and ruining business relationships. OCA is based around the four D’s: Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Deceive. While it’s not known if the NSA engages in these tactics, these GCHQ slides were presented to the NSA.

The presentation, called “The Art of Deception,” features something even stranger: several pictures of UFOs, with no explanatory text. Nigel Watson, author of the Haynes UFO Investigations Manual, told Yahoo News that the images are likely not proof of alien visitations, but rather evidence that spy agencies use fear of UFOs to scare the public. (Of course, it’s more likely these slides were just illustrating something the speaker was saying, perhaps about how people grasp for meaning when faced with inexplicable facts. After all, another slide is a photo of a Whole Foods sale poster; no one is suggesting that Whole Foods is a GHCQ front.)

But things get even stranger. Did you know that the NSA has its own advice columnist? The column, called “Ask Zelda!” has been distributed on the agency’s intranet since 2010. In a twist of bizarre irony, one of the letters to Zelda is from an NSA employee concerned about his boss spying on him and his coworkers. Zelda advises “Silenced in SID” that such snooping is inappropriate, and that he should confront his boss about it.

Those in charge of U.S. intelligence agencies apparently don’t read Zelda’s column, as the Associated Press reports that they are planning a system to implement continuous monitoring of employees with security clearances. The computerized system would scan “private credit agencies, law enforcement databases and threat lists, military and other government records, licenses, data services, and public record repositories” for “unusual behavior patterns.”

On the legal front, the New York Times explains how the secret rulings of the FISA court paved the way for mass surveillance. The key is the so-called “Raw Take” order from 2002, which loosened restrictions on sharing “unfiltered personal information” with interior agencies and foreign governments.

Meanwhile, The Intercept broke another major story about how the NSA is planning to infect millions of computers with malware, codenamed TURBINE, to enable “industrial-scale exploitation.” Apart from the obvious concerns here (Industrial-scale malware? Really? Like that could never get out of control.), Mikko Hypponen of Finnish security firm F-Secure warns that TURBINE could inadvertently undermine the security of the Internet by potentially creating new vulnerabilities on affected systems, thus making them more susceptible to attack by third parties.

But of all the intelligence-related developments, the brewing battle between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Central Intelligence Agency might be both the strangest and the most consequential.

The tussle revolves around the 6,300-page, $40-million report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA’s use of torture during the Bush administration. The CIA classified the document, which reportedly lambastes the CIA’s use of torture for being ineffective, barring it from public release. Part of the reason the report cost so much was that Senate investigators had to travel to a special CIA facility to view the relevant documents on CIA-approved computers.

At some point, Senate investigators obtained a copy of the CIA’s internal review on the use of torture, which the CIA claims it did not intend for the Intelligence Committee’s eyes. In return, the CIA searched the computers provided to the Senate, along with a separate network drive containing Senate staffers’ work and internal messages. As a result, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA have accused each other of wrongdoing; both cases now have been referred to the Justice Department.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has in the past been a staunch defender of the intelligence community, is hopping mad about the CIA’s actions. On 11 March 2014, Feinstein delivered a long, scathing speech, accusing the CIA of tampering with the Senate’s work.

The key question in the dispute revolves around who owns the computers. The CIA says it owns the computers. However, Feinstein claims that the computers are the property of the Senate, and Senator Ron Wyden has backed up her claim, even stating that the CIA has admitted as such in a recent (unspecified) court filing. The Guardian reports that a 2009 agreement between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA stated that the committee staffers’ records and the provided computers would remain their own.

The broader question is why there were documents related to torture that the Senate panel wasn’t supposed to see in the first place. But more troubling is the even broader implication for U.S. government in general.

“This is kind of death of the Republic kind of stuff,” said MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who has often served as a cheerleader of the Obama administration. And that’s not just the media talking. “I have grave concerns that the CIA search may well have violated the separation of powers principle in the U.S. Constitution,” Senator Feinstein said in her speech.

Even more chilling is that intelligence leaders are pushing for legislation that could criminally punish journalists for publishing government leaks. “I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,” said outgoing NSA chief General Keith Alexander. President Obama has nominated Vice Admiral Michael Rogers to replace Alexander, but Rogers has his work cut out for him.

On the other side of the fence, Edward Snowden submitted 12 pages of testimony to the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee. There isn’t much new there, but it’s a fascinating read, and Snowden counters critics by stating that he attempted to address issues about mass surveillance to “more than ten distinct officials,” but his superiors ignored him. Both Snowden and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks held remote panels at this year’s SXSW Interactive conference. Again, nothing new, but they make for interesting viewing.

Speaking of conference panels, yours truly has been invited to moderate one at this year’s Macworld/iWorld, titled “The NSA and You.” We have a fantastic guest lineup: Parker Higgins of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, our own Joe Kissell (author of “Take Control of Your Online Privacy”) and Rich Mogull (whose day job is as a security consultant for Securosis), Kim Zetter of Wired, and Quinn Norton — who has in the past been embedded with Occupy Wall Street and Anonymous, and who was recently invited to speak with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It’s sure to be a lively discussion, so swing by if you’ll be in town. And if you have questions for the panel, send them my way! In the meantime, you can watch my MacVoices interview with Chuck Joiner about the panel.


Backblaze is unlimited, unthrottled backup for Macs at $5/month.
Web access to files means your data is always available. Restore
by Mail allows you to recover files via a hard drive or USB.
Start your 15-day trial today! <>

Comments about Keeping Up with the Snoops 4: When the Going Gets Weird…
(Comments are closed.)

Dennis B. Swaney  2014-03-17 16:01
Diane Feinstein has always considered herself to be above the law, so she is really mad about being treated as an ordinary citizen. Unfortunately the deluded voters here in the CPR keep re-electing her and "The Check Kiter"
Norman Wikner  An apple icon for a TidBITS Benefactor 2014-03-17 18:54
This whole series of articles contains gross misstatements of fact, indulge in speculation, and now dabble in paranoia. They have a large political bias, and are inappropriate content for Tidbits. If they continue, I will have to reconsider my monetary support (small though it is) for Tidbits.

Mr. Centers: The NSA does not CARE about you. They do not have the time or the resources to monitor your communications, even if it were legal; and it isn't, so they can't and don't. You should be far more concerned about what information Facebook, Google, and other corporate entities are collecting about you. Perhaps you could start writing about that. Failing that, please find some other forum for your diatribes.
Josh Centers  An apple icon for a TidBITS Staffer 2014-03-17 20:40
Mr. Wikner:

I'm sorry you don't enjoy our "Keeping Up with the Snoops" series. If we've misstated anything, please point it out and we'll correct it. By and large, these articles merely aggregate news reported by sources, and our readers are encouraged to follow those links and draw their own conclusions.

We cover these events because they have a profound effect on the tech industry, including Apple. We continue to produce these articles because we have enough readers (including other paying members) that ask for them. Nor do we write that many — a couple per month at most.

We didn't speculate much here, other than asking the reasonable question that if the GCHQ is using reputation attacks against non-criminal targets, and they presented that information to its ally, the NSA, then is the NSA doing the same thing? I believe it's a fair question.

Paranoia? Personally, we found the UFO thing funny. These articles are admittedly a bit tongue-in-cheek, thus the silly series name.

What political bias? We've covered both parties pretty equally, as both have had a hand in these events. If you're referring to calling Rachel Maddow a cheerleader for the Obama administration, well, it's often been true. I should know, I've watched her from her first episode! She's a fine journalist, but she has an unabashed liberal bias. I felt it was important to underscore that to add weight to her "death of the republic" comment.

As for your comments directed toward me, if you've read my previous articles, you know that the NSA does have the time and nearly unlimited resources. And their activities have been ruled illegal by courts in the recent past, as we've reported.

Regarding what Google and Facebook collect, the difference is consent. No one forces me to use Gmail, Facebook, or Chrome. Nor are those companies beholden to uphold the 4th Amendment.

Funny you should mention Facebook, as Mark Zuckerberg has written an open letter to President Obama regarding intelligence activities:
George Stamas  2014-03-19 07:31
The NSA, Facebook and Google all collect personal information. Only one of these outfits can deprive you of life and liberty.

Can you guess which one?

In one respect you are quite correct however. The NSA does not CARE about Mr. Centers. Or anyone. You and I can deny Tidbits our small monetary support if we choose. Nothing bad will happen to us, except perhaps the loss of a great website. We can indirectly deny the same (much larger) monetary support to the NSA only by refusing to pay taxes, but the result of that is jail.
I have voted for Diane Feinstein several times. I always appreciated her as an intellectual liberal.

I will not vote for her again.

How can a liberal with a conscience defend the undermining of basic civil liberties in the name of the post-9/11 mass hysteria affectionally labeled "national security"?

She defended the snoops through thick and thin as long as she was convinced they were tapping other people's phones and tracking other people's movements. After all, she was one of the good guys and the snoops were only after the bad guys, right?

Now that she realized she's been as much a target as the shmucks who got her elected she's suddenly all up in arms. I'd like to think she was just naive, but I know she's too smart for that. She new exactly what was going on.

Her hypocrisy is really impressive. I'll gladly vote for another candidate next time. But good luck keeping up the charade, senator.