Group items tagged

A National Security Agency eavesdropping program exceeded legal limits intended to safeguard privacy, and officials have taken steps to bring the intercepts program into compliance, the Justice Department said Wednesday. The department, in a statement, said problems with the NSA program were uncovered as the Justice Department and National Security Agency were conducting routine oversight of intelligence activities to ensure compliance with laws and court orders. Attorney General Eric Holder has sought court approval to renew the NSA program after instituting new safeguards. The House intelligence committee was informed of the compliance issues and is conducting an inquiry, a House congressional official said. The New York Times on Wednesday reported on its Web site that the program intercepted private email messages and phone calls of Americans. However, intelligence officials have described the program as primarily searching for information based on data about communications, such as email addresses, subject headers and the time a message or phone call was placed. The Justice Department said officials notified the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the problems with the NSA program and took "comprehensive steps" to correct the matter. "The Justice Department takes its national security oversight responsibilities seriously and works diligently to ensure that surveillance under established legal authorities complies with the nation's laws, regulations and policies, including those designed to protect privacy interests and civil liberties," the department said.

Like this http://www.hdfilmsaati.net Film,dvd,download,free download,product... ppc,adword,adsense,amazon,clickbank,osell,bookmark,dofollow,edu,gov,ads,linkwell,traffic,scor,serp,goggle,bing,yahoo.ads,ads network,ads goggle,bing,quality links,link best,ptr,cpa,bpa. www.killdo.de.gg

As I'm sure you know, former NSA analyst Russell Tice revealed that the agency spied on journalists and ordinary Americans - not just communications between the U.S. and overseas. Speaking on the Keith Olbermann show on MSNBC, Tice said: "The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications," he said. "Faxes, phone calls and their computer communications. … They monitored all communications." He made a further appearance on Olbermann Thursday (view above), in which he said that the NSA combined these illegal wiretaps with credit card and financial data. ""This [information] could sit there for ten years and then potentially it marries up with something else and ten years from now they get put on a no-fly list and they, of course, won't have a clue why," Tice said. "This is garnered from algorithms that have been put together to try to just dream-up scenarios that might be information that is associated with how a terrorist could operate," Tice said. "And once that information gets to the NSA, and they start to put it through the filters there . . . and they start looking for word-recognition, if someone just talked about the daily news and mentioned something about the Middle East they could easily be brought to the forefront of having that little flag put by their name that says 'potential terrorist'." Why were they monitoring reporters? New York Times reporter James Risen told Olbermann he thought it was a plot "to have a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers in the government to make them realize that there's a Big Brother out there that will get them if they step out of line."

The U.S. government's director for cybersecurity resigned on Friday, criticizing the excessive role of the National Security Agency in countering threats to the country's computer systems. "He has tendered his resignation," Amy Kudwa, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman told Reuters. Former Silicon Valley entrepreneur Rod Beckstrom said in a resignation letter published by the Wall Street Journal it was a "bad strategy" to have the National Security Agency, which is part of the Department of Defense, play a major role in cybersecurity. Beckstrom headed the National Cybersecurity Center, which was created last March to coordinate all government cybersecurity efforts and answers to the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security said in a statement that it has a strong relationship with the NSA and continues to work closely with all of its partners to protect the country's cyber networks. Beckstrom wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday in his resignation letter that the NSA currently dominates most national cyber efforts. "While acknowledging the critical importance of NSA to our intelligence efforts, I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds," he wrote in the letter posted by the Wall Street Journal on its website. National Security Agency officials could not immediately be reached for comment. Beckstrom said in his letter that the cybersecurity group did not receive adequate support to accomplish its role during the previous administration of President George W. Bush, which only provided the center with five weeks of funding in the last year. His resignation will be effective March 13, the letter said. The newspaper said the Obama administration was conducting a 60-day review of the cybersecurity program started by Bush last year to protect government networks.

Should responsibility for defending against cyberattacks be moved from the Dept. of Homeland Security to the military? Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton suggested as much at a Congressional hearing where he warned of U.S. vulnerability to cyberwarfar "across the spectrum." Such attacks "potentially threaten not only our military networks, but also our critical national networks," Chilton told a House Armed Services subcommittee, the Washington Post reported. As head of Strategic Command, the general isn't responsibel for defending civilian networks, just government computers. [Stratcom's responsibility is] "to operate and defend the military networks only and be prepared to attack in cyberspace when directed. I think the broader question is, who should best do this for the other parts of America, where we worry about defending power grids, our financial institutions, our telecommunications, our transportation networks, the networks that support them." Well, that's where the 60-day interagency overview of cybersecurity comes in. At the end of that, Chilton said, responsibility for protecting private sector networks may well fit under Stratcom's duties. So what impact in having the military at the center of cybersecurity? Importantly, it brings offensive ops into the defense game. And where the military is involved, can NSA be far behind? No. Operational control over both [offensive and defensive ops], Chilton said, has been delegated to Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency. … NSA, according to Chilton, already has a role in information security, and the agency's support "has been instrumental in our efforts to operate and particularly to defend our networks," he said. Combining oversight of cyber defense and offense made sense, Chilton said, "because they're so interconnected. . . . As you consider offensive operations, you want to make sure your defense are up."

We've all heard the argument before: "Why should you worry about the government looking into your personal records if you have nothing to hide?" Daniel J. Solove, an associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School, analyzes that argument in a recently published paper titled "I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy." Solove argues that "the question assumes faulty assumptions about privacy and its value." Those who make the "nothing to hide" argument fail to understand the chilling effect that surveillance has on public discourse, the fact that small bits of private data (which an individual may not object to being uncovered) when put together form a larger and more intimate profile (which an individual may object to), and the mistake of having one's profile mistakenly associated with a group that is labeled as threatening. Here's an excerpt from the paper, which was published in the latest issue of the San Diego Law Review: [T]he problem with the "nothing to hide" argument is that it focuses on just one or two particular kinds of privacy problems - the disclosure of personal information or surveillance - and not others. It assumes a particular view about what privacy entails, and it sets the terms for debate in a manner that is often unproductive. It is important to distinguish here between two ways of justifying a program such as the NSA surveillance and data mining program. First is to not recognize a problem. This is how the "nothing to hide" argument works. It denies even the existence of a problem. The second manner of justifying such a program is to acknowledge the problems but contend that the benefits of the NSA program outweigh the privacy harms. The first justification influences the second, for the low value given to privacy is based upon a narrow view of the problem. The key misunderstanding is that the "nothing to hide" argument views privacy in a particular way - as a

""So many people in America think this does not affect them. They've been convinced that these programs are only targeted at suspected terrorists. … I think that's wrong. … Our programs are not perfect, and it is inevitable that totally innocent Americans are going to be affected by these programs," former CIA Assistant General Counsel Suzanne Spaulding tells FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith in Spying on the Home Front. 9/11 has indelibly altered America in ways that people are now starting to earnestly question: not only perpetual orange alerts, barricades and body frisks at the airport, but greater government scrutiny of people's records and electronic surveillance of their communications. The watershed, officials tell FRONTLINE, was the government's shift after 9/11 to a strategy of pre-emption at home -- not just prosecuting terrorists for breaking the law, but trying to find and stop them before they strike. President Bush described his anti-terrorist measures as narrow and targeted, but a FRONTLINE investigation has found that the National Security Agency (NSA) has engaged in wiretapping and sifting Internet communications of millions of Americans; the FBI conducted a data sweep on 250,000 Las Vegas vacationers, and along with more than 50 other agencies, they are mining commercial-sector data banks to an unprecedented degree."

It affects each & every US citizen in one way or another. Good video on privacy & security.

Legislation to reform the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 will be introduced in the Senate on Tuesday, a Senate staffer who helped draft the bill told a panel at the RSA Conference in San Francisco on Thursday. Erik Hopkins' presentation provided further evidence that the White House could assume greater control in coordinating federal government security. In the panel - The New FISMA: Security Finally Transcends Compliance - Hopkins offered a diagram illustrating the bill that showed a cyber office reporting directly to the president. Hopkins, who works for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, was the third federal official addressing conference attendees to suggest the White House will be given more authority in safeguarding federal government information systems. On Wednesday, Obama administration cybersecurity advisor Melissa Hathaway - who last week submitted to the president an assessment of federal cybersecurity policy - said the White House must lead federal government cybersecurity efforts. A day before, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander said NSA would not lead the nation's cybersecurity efforts, suggesting a greater role for the White House. Hopkins said the benefits of FISMA reform includes improved coordination of security efforts, better economies of scale and greater situational awareness of security threats such as knowing where they originate and how the government will respond.