Mass surveillance in the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia National Security Agency surveillance Programs[show] Legislation[show] Institutions[show] Lawsuits[show] Whistleblowers[show] Publication[show] Related[show] Concepts[show] Collaboration[show] v t e Main article: Mass surveillance The practice of mass surveillance in the United States dates back to wartime monitoring and censorship of international communications from, to, or which passed through the United States. After the First and Second World Wars, the surveillance continued, via programs such as the Black Chamber and Project SHAMROCK. The formation and growth of federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA institutionalized surveillance, such as the COINTELPRO projects from 1956–1971, which targeted various presumably subversive organizations, including anti-war and civil rights activists. The formation of the ECHELON collaboration of five English-speaking nations in the latter half of the 1940s focused on interception of electronic communications, with substantial increases in surveillance capabilities described as necessary for thwarting terrorism following the September 11th attacks of 2001. A series of media reports in 2013 revealed more recent programs and techniques employed by the US intelligence community. Advances in computer and information technology allow the creation of huge national databases that facilitate mass surveillance in the United States.[1][2] Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 Wartime censorship and surveillance 1.2 Black Chamber 1.3 Project SHAMROCK 1.4 National Security Agency (NSA) 1.5 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1.6 Church committee review 1.7 ECHELON 1.8 Escalation following the September 11th attacks of 2001 1.9 Acceleration of media leaks (2010–present) 1.10 2013 mass surveillance disclosures 2 Modalities, concepts, and methods 2.1 Logging postal mail 2.2 Wiretapping 2.2.1 Legal foundations 2.2.2 Internet communications 2.2.3 Intelligence apparatus to monitor Americans 2.2.4 Telephones 2.2.5 Infiltration of smartphones 2.3 Data mining of subpoenaed records 2.4 Surveillance cameras 2.5 Surveillance drones 2.6 Infiltration of activist groups 2.7 International cooperation 3 Uses of intercepted data 4 See also 5 References 6 External links History[edit] Wartime censorship and surveillance[edit] During the world wars of the 20th century, all international mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service and international cables sent through companies such as Western Union, ITT, and RCA were reviewed by the US military.[3] During World War II, first the War Department and later the Office of Censorship monitored “communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country”.[4] In 1942 this included the 350,000 overseas cables and telegrams and 25,000 international telephone calls made each week.[5]:144 “Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details.”[4] Black Chamber[edit] 1919: The Black Chamber, also known as the Cipher Bureau and MI-8, was the first U.S. peacetime cryptanalytic organization, jointly funded by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Department of State. It conducted peacetime decryption of material including diplomatic communications until 1929.[6][7] Project SHAMROCK[edit] 1945: The now-defunct Project SHAMROCK was created to gather all telegraphic data entering into or exiting from the United States.[6][8] Major communication companies such as Western Union, RCA Global and ITT World Communications actively aided the U.S. government in the latter’s attempt to gain access to international message traffic.[9] National Security Agency (NSA)[edit] At the request of the U.S. Army, those who protested against the Vietnam War were put on the NSA’s “watch list”.[9] 1952: Seven years later, the National Security Agency (NSA) was officially established.[6] According to The New York Times, the NSA was created in “absolute secrecy” by President Truman.[10] Six weeks after President Truman took office, he ordered wiretaps on the telephones of Thomas Gardiner Corcoran, a close advisor of Franklin D. Roosevelt.[11] The recorded conversations are currently kept at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum, along with other sensitive documents (~233,600 pages). In addition, the FBI kept a dossier on First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who spoke out against anti-Japanese prejudice during the second world war, and was a vocal supporter of the civil rights movement. The 3,000-page FBI dossier on Eleanor Roosevelt reveals the government’s close monitoring of her activities and writings, and contains charges against her for suspected Communist activities.[12][13] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)[edit] As the extent of the FBI’s domestic surveillance continued to grow, many celebrities were also secretly investigated by the bureau, including: Frank Sinatra – His 1,300 page FBI dossier, dating from 1943, contains allegations about Sinatra’s possible ties to the American Communist Party. The FBI spent several decades tracking Sinatra and his associates.[14][15] Marilyn Monroe – Her FBI dossier begins in 1955 and continues up until the months before her death. It focuses mostly on her travels and associations, searching for signs of leftist views and possible ties to communism.[16] Her ex-husband, Arthur Miller, was also monitored. Monroe’s FBI dossier is “heavily censored”, but a “reprocessed” version has been released by the FBI to the public.[16] John Lennon – In 1971, shortly after Lennon arrived in the United States on a visa to meet up with anti-war activists, the FBI placed Lennon under surveillance, and the U.S. government tried to deport him from the country.[17] At that time, opposition to the Vietnam War had reached a peak and Lennon often showed up at political rallies to sing his anti-war anthem “Give Peace a Chance”.[17] The U.S. government argued that Lennon’s 300 page FBI dossier was particularly sensitive because its release may “lead to foreign diplomatic, economic and military retaliation against the United States”,[18] and therefore only approved a “heavily censored” version.[19] The Beatles, which John Lennon was part of, had a separate FBI dossier. Some of the greatest historical figures of the 20th century, including several U.S. citizens, were placed under warrantless surveillance for the purpose of character assassination – a process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, or nation. Left: Albert Einstein, who supported the anti-war movement and opposed nuclear proliferation, was a member of numerous civil rights groups including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (See Albert Einstein’s political views). As a result of his political views, Einstein was subjected to telephone tapping, and his mail was searched by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as part of a secret government campaign that aimed to link him with a Soviet espionage ring in order to first discredit him, and then deport him (unsuccessfully) from the United States.[20][21][22] Center: Martin Luther King, Jr., a leader of the African-American Civil Rights Movement, was the target of an intensive campaign by the FBI to “neutralize” him as an effective civil rights activist.[23] A FBI memo recognized King to be the “most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.”,[24] and the agency wanted to discredit him by collecting evidence to (unsuccessfully) prove that he had been influenced by communism.[24] Right: Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the media in 1971, experienced one of the most spectacular episodes of government surveillance and character assassination. The White House tried to steal his medical records and other possibly detrimental information by sending a special unit to break into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.[25][26] These activities were later uncovered during the course of investigation as the Watergate scandal slowly unfolded, which eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.[27] See also: The FBI kept a dossier on Albert Einstein (~1,500 pages) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (~17,000 pages). Due to a court order, however, some information has been removed and many other pages will not be released until the year 2027.[28] 1967–73: The now-defunct Project MINARET was created to spy on U.S. citizens. At the request of the U.S. Army, those who protested against the Vietnam War were put on the NSA’s “watch list”.[9] The Church Committee of the United States Senate published the final report on “Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans” in 1976 (PDF, 26.54 MB) From 1940 until his death in 1966, the American business magnate Walt Disney served as a “S.A.C. Contact” (trusted informant) for the U.S. government to weed out communists and dissidents from the entertainment industry, according to documents obtained by The New York Times.[29] See also: Hollywood blacklist Church committee review[edit] 1975: The Church Committee of the United States Senate was set up to investigate widespread intelligence abuses by the NSA, CIA and FBI.[6] Domestic surveillance, authorizied by the highest executive branch of the federal government, spanned from the FDR Administration to the Presidency of Richard Nixon. The following examples were reported by the Church Committee: President Roosevelt asked the FBI to put in its files the names of citizens sending telegrams to the White House opposing his “national defense” policy and supporting Col. Charles Lindbergh.[30] President Truman received inside information on a former Roosevelt aide’s efforts to influence his appointments, labor union negotiating plans, and the publishing plans of journalists.[30] President Eisenhower received reports on purely political and social contacts with foreign officials by Bernard Baruch, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.[30] The Kennedy administration ordered the FBI to wiretap a congressional staff member, three executive officials, a lobbyist, and a Washington law firm. US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy received data from a FBI wire tap on Martin Luther King, Jr. and an electronic listening device targeting a congressman, both of which yielded information of a political nature.[30] President Johnson asked the FBI to conduct “name checks” of his critics and members of the staff of his 1964 opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater. He also requested purely political intelligence on his critics in the Senate, and received extensive intelligence reports on political activity at the 1964 Democratic Convention from FBI electronic surveillance.[30] President Nixon authorized a program of wiretaps which produced for the White House purely political or personal information unrelated to national security, including information about a Supreme Court justice.[30] The Final Report (Book II) of the Church Committee revealed the following statistics: Over 26,000 individuals were at one point catalogued on an FBI list of persons to be rounded up in the event of a “national emergency”.[30] Over 500,000 domestic intelligence files were kept at the FBI headquarters, of which 65,000 of were opened in 1972 alone.[30] At least 130,000 first class letters were opened and photographed by the FBI from 1940 to 1966.[30] A quarter of a million first class letters were opened and photographed by the CIA from 1953 to 1973.[30] Millions of private telegrams sent from, to, or through the United States were obtained by the National Security Agency (NSA), under a secret arrangement with U.S. telegraph companies, from 1947 to 1975.[30] Over 100,000 Americans have been indexed in U.S. Army intelligence files.[30] About 300,000 individuals were indexed in a CIA computer system during the course of Operation CHAOS.[30] Intelligence files on more than 11,000 individuals and groups were created by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), with tax investigations “done on the basis of political rather than tax criteria”.[30] In response to the committee’s findings, the FISA Court was established by the United States Congress to issue surveillance warrants.[31] Several decades later in 2013, the presiding judge of the FISA Court, Reggie Walton, told The Washington Post that the court only has a limited ability to supervise the government’s surveillance, and is therefore “forced” to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided by federal agents.[32] On August 17, 1975 Senator Frank Church stated on NBC’s “Meet the Press” without mentioning the name of the NSA about this agency: “ In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything — telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.[33][34][35] ” ECHELON[edit] In 1988, an article titled “Somebody’s listening” by Duncan Campbell in the New Statesman, described the signals intelligence gathering activities of a program code-named “ECHELON”.[36] The program was engaged by English-speaking World War II Allied powers Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States (collectively know as AUSCANNZUKUS). It was created to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War in the early 1960s.[37] By the 1990s the ECHELON system was capable of intercepting satellite transmissions, public switched telephone network (PSTN) communications (including most Internet traffic), and transmissions carried by microwave. A detailed description of ECHELON was provided by New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager in his 1996 book “Secret Power”. While the existence of ECHELON was denied by some member governments, a report by a committee of the European Parliament in 2001 confirmed the program’s use and warned Europeans about its reach and effects.[38] The European Parliament stated in its report that the term “ECHELON” was used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicated it was a signals intelligence collection system capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally.[37] The capabilities of ECHELON were further described by James Bamford in Body of Secrets about the National Security Agency.[39] Intelligence monitoring of citizens, and their communications, in the area covered by the AUSCANNZUKUS security agreement have, over the years, caused considerable public concern.[40][41] NSA key to (Microsoft) Windows: an open question Microsoft operating systems have a backdoor entrance for the National Security Agency, a cryptography expert said Friday, but the software giant denied the report and other experts differed on it. The chief scientist at an Internet security company said Microsoft built in a “key” for the nation’s most powerful intelligence agency to the cryptographic standard used in Microsoft Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT4 and Windows2000. – CNN, September 1999[42] Escalation following the September 11th attacks of 2001[edit] Further information: NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07) “ “We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act and to find them before they strike.” ” —President Bush speaking in Congress on September 20, 2001[43] The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center led to major reforms of U.S. intelligence agencies, and paved the way for the establishment of the Director of National Intelligence position On 1 January 2006, days after The New York Times wrote that “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,[44] the President emphasized that “This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat, limited.”[45] In the aftermath of the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, bulk domestic spying in the United States increased dramatically. The desire to prevent future attacks of this scale led to the passage of the Patriot Act. Later acts include the Protect America Act (which removes the warrant requirement for government surveillance of foreign targets)[46] and the FISA Amendments Act (which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements). In 2002, “Total Information Awareness” was established by the U.S. government in order to “revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists”.[47] In 2005, a report about President Bush’s President’s Surveillance Program appeared in the New York Times. According to reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, the actual publication of their report was delayed for a year because “The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article”.[44] Also in 2005, the existence of STELLARWIND was revealed by Thomas Tamm. In 2006, Mark Klein revealed the existence of Room 641A that he had wired back in 2003.[48] In 2008, Babak Pasdar, a computer security expert, and CEO of Bat Blue publicly revealed the existence of the “Quantico circuit”, that he and his team found in 2003. He described it as a back door to the federal government in the systems of an unnamed wireless provider; the company was later independently identified as Verizon.[49] You Are a Suspect Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a virtual, centralized grand database. To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver’s license and toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop’s dream: a Total Information Awareness about every U.S. citizen. This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.”. – The New York Times, November 2002[50] Trading on the Future of Terror The war on terrorism has come to this: The Pentagon is setting up a commodity-style market to use real investors — putting down real money — to help its generals predict terrorist attacks, coups d’etat and other turmoil in the Middle East. “Two angry senators disclosed the program, called the Policy Analysis Market, in hopes of heading off the registration of investors, set to begin Friday. Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota said more than $500,000 in taxpayer funds has already been spent to develop the project, and the Pentagon has requested $8 million over the next two years. Trading would begin Oct. 1.” “Can you imagine if another country set up a betting parlor so that people could … bet on the assassination of an American political figure?” Dorgan asked. It is, he said, “unbelievably stupid.” Poindexter and other senior DARPA officials could not be reached for comment. But in a statement, DARPA said it “is exploring new ways to help analysts predict and thereby prevent terrorist attacks through the use of futures market mechanisms. Research indicates that markets are extremely efficient, effective and timely aggregators of dispersed and even hidden information.””. – The Los Angeles Times, July 2003[51] The NSA’s database of American’s phone calls was made public in 2006 by USA Today journalist Leslie Cauley in an article titled, “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls.”[52] The article cites anonymous sources that described the program’s reach on American citizens: “…it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others. The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.” The report failed to generate discussion of privacy rights in the media and was not referenced by Greenwald or the Washington Post in any of their reporting. In 2009, The New York Times cited several anonymous intelligence officials alleging that “the N.S.A. made Americans targets in eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence tying them to terrorism” and “the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant”.[53] Acceleration of media leaks (2010–present)[edit] On 15 March 2012, the American magazine Wired published an article with the headline “The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)”,[54] which was later mentioned by U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson during a congressional hearing. In response to Johnson’s inquiry, NSA director Keith B. Alexander testified that these allegations made by Wired magazine were untrue: NSA Director Keith Alexander’s testimony to the United States Congress on 20 March 2012[55] [show] 2013 mass surveillance disclosures[edit] Main article: 2013 mass surveillance disclosures Part of a series on Mass surveillance By location Australia China East Germany India North Korea United Kingdom United States v t e On 6 June 2013, Britain’s The Guardian newspaper began publishing a series of revelations by an as yet unknown American whistleblower, revealed several days later to be ex-CIA and ex-NSA-contracted systems analyst Edward Snowden. Snowden gave a cache of documents to two journalists: Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, Greenwald later estimated that the cache contains 15,000 – 20,000 documents, some very large and very detailed, and some very small.[56][57] This was one of the largest news leaks in the modern history of the United States.[58] In over two months of publications, it became clear that the NSA operates a complex web of spying programs which allow it to intercept internet and telephone conversations from over a billion users from dozens of countries around the world. Specific revelations have been made about China, the European Union, Latin America, Iran and Pakistan, and Australia and New Zealand, however the published documentation reveals that many of the programs indiscriminately collect bulk information directly from central servers and internet backbones, which almost invariably carry and reroute information from distant countries. Due to this central server and backbone monitoring, many of the programs overlap and interrelate among one another. These programs are often done with the assistance of US entities such as the United States Department of Justice and the FBI,[59] are sanctioned by US laws such as the FISA Amendments Act, and the necessary court orders for them are signed by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In addition to this, many of the NSA’s programs are directly aided by national and foreign intelligence services, Britain’s GCHQ and Australia’s DSD, as well as by large private telecommunications and internet corporations, such as Verizon, Telstra,[60] Google and Facebook.[61] On 9 June 2013, Edward Snowden told The Guardian: “They (the NSA) can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer” —Edward Snowden[62] The US government has aggressively sought to dismiss and challenge Fourth Amendment cases raised: Hepting v. AT&T, Jewel v. NSA, Clapper v. Amnesty International, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama and Center for Constitutional Rights v. Obama. The government has also granted retroactive immunity to ISPs and telecoms participating in domestic surveillance.[63][64] The US district court judge for the District of Columbia, Richard Leon, declared[65][66][67][68][69][70] on December 16, 2013 that the mass collection of metadata of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency probably violates the fourth amendment prohibition unreasonable searches and seizures.[71] “Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation – most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics – I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.”[72] “Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that their privacy interests outweigh the government’s interest in collecting and analysing bulk telephony metadata and therefore the NSA’s bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment,” he wrote.[72] “The Fourth Amendment typically requires ‘a neutral and detached authority be interposed between the police and the public,’ and it is offended by ‘general warrants’ and laws that allow searches to be conducted ‘indiscriminately and without regard to their connections with a crime under investigation,'” he wrote.[73] He added: “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,’ would be aghast.”[73] Leon granted the request for a preliminary injunction that blocks the collection of phone data for two private plaintiffs (Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, father of a cryptologist killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011)[72] and ordered the government to destroy any of their records that have been gathered. But the judge stayed action on his ruling pending a government appeal, recognizing in his 68-page opinion the “significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues.”[71] Modalities, concepts, and methods[edit] Official seal of the Information Awareness Office — a U.S. agency which developed technologies for mass surveillance Logging postal mail[edit] Main article: Mail Isolation Control and Tracking Under the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, the U.S. Postal Service photographs the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces in 2012. The U.S. Postmaster General stated that the system is primarily used for mail sorting, but the images are available for possible use by law enforcement agencies.[74] Created in 2001 following the anthrax attacks that killed five people, it is a sweeping expansion of a 100 year old program called “mail cover” which targets people suspected of crimes. Together, the two programs show that postal mail is subject to the same kind of scrutiny that the National Security Agency gives to telephone calls, e-mail, and other forms of electronic communication.[75] Mail cover surveillance requests are granted for about 30 days, and can be extended for up to 120 days. Images captured under the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program are retained for a week to 30 days and then destroyed.[74] There are two kinds of mail covers: those related to criminal activity and those requested to protect national security. Criminal activity requests average 15,000 to 20,000 per year, while the number of requests for national security mail covers has not been made public. Neither the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program nor the mail cover program require prior approval by a judge. For both programs the information gathered is metadata from the outside of the envelope or package for which courts have said there is no expectation of privacy. Opening the mail to view its contents would require a warrant approved by a judge.[75] Wiretapping[edit] Billions of dollars per year are spent, by agencies such as the Information Awareness Office, National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to develop, purchase, implement, and operate systems such as Carnivore, ECHELON, and NarusInsight to intercept and analyze the immense amount of data that traverses the Internet and telephone system every day.[76] The Total Information Awareness program, of the Information Awareness Office, designed numerous technologies to be used to perform mass surveillance. Examples include advanced speech-to-text programs (so that phone conversations can be monitored en-masse by a computer, instead of requiring human operators to listen to them), social network analysis software to monitor groups of people and their interactions with each other, and “Human identification at a distance” software which allows computers to identify people on surveillance cameras by their facial features and gait (the way they walk). The program was later renamed “Terrorism Information Awareness”, after a negative public reaction. Legal foundations[edit] The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires that all U.S. telecommunications companies modify their equipment to allow easy wiretapping of telephone, VoIP, and broadband internet traffic.[77][78][79] In 1999 two models of mandatory data retention were suggested for the US: What IP address was assigned to a customer at a specific time. In the second model, “which is closer to what Europe adopted”, telephone numbers dialed, contents of Web pages visited, and recipients of e-mail messages must be retained by the ISP for an unspecified amount of time.[80][81] In 2006 the International Association of Chiefs of Police adopted a resolution calling for a “uniform data retention mandate” for “customer subscriber information and source and destination information.”[82] The U.S. Department of Justice announced in 2011 that criminal investigations “are being frustrated” because no law currently exists to force Internet providers to keep track of what their customers are doing.[83] The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an ongoing lawsuit (Hepting v. AT&T) against the telecom giant AT&T Inc. for its assistance to the U.S. government in monitoring the communications of millions of American citizens. It has managed thus far to keep the proceedings open. Recently the documents, exposed by a whistleblower who previously worked for AT&T, showing schematics of the massive data mining system were made public.[84][85] Internet communications[edit] The FBI developed the computer programs “Magic Lantern” and CIPAV, which they can remotely install on a computer system, in order to monitor a person’s computer activity.[86] The NSA has been gathering information on financial records, internet surfing habits, and monitoring e-mails. They have also performed extensive surveillance on social networks such as Myspace.[87] Intelligence apparatus to monitor Americans[edit] Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a vast domestic intelligence apparatus has been built to collect information using FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators. The intelligence apparatus collects, analyzes and stores information about millions of (if not all) American citizens, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Every state and local law enforcement agency is to feed information to federal authorities to support the work of the FBI.[88] The PRISM special source operation system was enabled by the Protect America Act of 2007 under President Bush and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which legally immunized private companies that cooperated voluntarily with US intelligence collection and was renewed by Congress under President Obama in 2012 for five years until December 2017. According to The Register, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 “specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of U.S. citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant” when one of the parties is outside the U.S. PRISM was first publicly revealed on 6 June 2013, after classified documents about the program were leaked to The Washington Post and The Guardian by Edward Snowden. Telephones[edit] In early 2006, USA Today reported that several major telephone companies were cooperating illegally with the National Security Agency to monitor the phone records of U.S. citizens, and storing them in a large database known as the NSA call database. This report came on the heels of allegations that the U.S. government had been conducting electronic surveillance of domestic telephone calls without warrants.[89] Law enforcement and intelligence services in the United States possess technology to remotely activate the microphones in cell phones in order to listen to conversations that take place nearby the person who holds the phone.[90][91][92] U.S. federal agents regularly use mobile phones to collect location data. The geographical location of a mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily (whether it is being used or not), using a technique known multilateration to calculate the differences in time for a signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the phone.[93][94] In 2013, the existence of the Hemisphere Project, through which AT&T provides call detail records to government agencies, became publicly known. Infiltration of smartphones[edit] As worldwide sales of smartphones began exceeding those of feature phones, the NSA decided to take advantage of the smartphone boom. This is particularly advantageous because the smartphone combines a myriad of data that would interest an intelligence agency, such as social contacts, user behavior, interests, location, photos and credit card numbers and passwords.[95] An internal NSA report from 2010 stated that the spread of the smartphone has been occurring “extremely rapidly”—developments that “certainly complicate traditional target analysis.”[95] According to the document, the NSA has set up task forces assigned to several smartphone manufacturers and operating systems, including Apple Inc.’s iPhone and iOS operating system, as well as Google’s Android mobile operating system.[95] Similarly, Britain’s GCHQ assigned a team to study and crack the BlackBerry.[95] Under the heading “iPhone capability”, the document notes that there are smaller NSA programs, known as “scripts”, that can perform surveillance on 38 different features of the iPhone 3 and iPhone 4 operating systems. These include the mapping feature, voicemail and photos, as well as Google Earth, Facebook and Yahoo! Messenger.[95] In July 2013, Google confirmed that it had inserted NSA’s Security Enhancements for Android (containing NSA’s Security-Enhanced Linux[96] that is “generally accepted as being [a great addition that makes] a secure operating system even more safe”[97]) source code into its Android 4.2 operating system.[98] Newer devices such as the Sony Xperia Z, HTC One, and Samsung Galaxy S4, all contain it “buried in Google’s latest release”.[98] Data mining of subpoenaed records[edit] See also: Data mining, Information extraction and Predictive analytics The FBI collected nearly all hotel, airline, rental car, gift shop, and casino records in Las Vegas during the last two weeks of 2003. The FBI requested all electronic data of hundreds of thousands of people based on a very general lead for the Las Vegas New Year’s celebration. The Senior VP of The Mirage went on record with PBS’ Frontline describing the first time they were requested to help in the mass collection of personal information.[99] Surveillance cameras[edit] Traffic cameras, which were meant to help enforce traffic laws at intersections, have also sparked some controversy, due to their use by law enforcement agencies for purposes unrelated to traffic violations.[100] These cameras also work as transit choke-points that allow individuals inside the vehicle to be positively identified and license plate data to be collected and time stamped for cross reference with airborne Wide Area Persistent Surveillance Systems such as ARGUS and HAWKEYE used by police.[101] Wide Area Persistent Surveillance using Wide Area Motion Imagery is capable of live viewing and recording a 68 square mile area with enough detail to view pedestrians and vehicles.[102] These gigapixel cameras, such as Gorgon Stare, Angelfire, Hawkeye and ARGUS,[103] create airborne video so detailed that pedestrians can be followed across the city through forensic analysis. This allows investigators to rewind and playback the movements of anyone within this 68 square mile area. PeSEAS[104] and PerMIATE[105] software automate and record the movement observed in the WAMI video.[106] This technology uses software to track and record the movements of pedestrians and vehicles using automatic object recognition software across the entire frame, generating “tracklets” or chronographs of every car and pedestrian movements. 24/7 deployment of this technology has been suggested by the DHS on spy blimps such as the recently killed Blue Devil Airship.[107] The Department of Homeland Security is funding networks of surveillance cameras in cities and towns as part of its efforts to combat terrorism.[108] In February 2009, Cambridge, MA rejected the cameras due to privacy concerns.[109] Surveillance drones[edit] On 19 June 2013, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the federal government had been employing surveillance drones on U.S. soil in “particular incidents”.[110] According to Mueller, the FBI is currently in the initial stage of developing drone policies.[110] Earlier in 2012, Congress passed a US$63 billion bill that will grant four years of additional funding to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Under the bill, the FAA is required to provide military and commercial drones with expanded access to U.S. airspace by October 2015.[111] In February 2013, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department explained that these drones would initially be deployed in large public gatherings, including major protests. Over time, tiny drones would be used to fly inside buildings to track down suspects and assist in investigations.[112] According to The Los Angeles Times, the main advantage of using drones is that they offer “unblinking eye-in-the-sky coverage”. They can be modified to carry high-resolution video cameras, infrared sensors, license plate readers, listening devices, and be disguised as sea gulls or other birds to mask themselves.[112] By 2020, about 30,000 unmanned drones are expected to be deployed in the United States for the purpose of surveillance and law enforcement.[113] Infiltration of activist groups[edit] In 2003, consent decrees against surveillance around the country were lifted, with the assistance of the Justice Department.[114] The New York City Police Department infiltrated and compiled dossiers on protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention, leading to over 1,800 arrests and subsequent fingerprinting.[115] In 2008, Maryland State Police infiltrated local peace groups.[116] In 2013, a Washington, D.C. undercover cop infiltrated peace groups.[117] International cooperation[edit] The “five eyes” of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States During World War II, the BRUSA Agreement was signed by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom for the purpose of intelligence sharing. This was later formalized in the UKUSA Agreement of 1946 as a secret treaty. The full text of the agreement was released to the public on 25 June 2010.[118] Although the treaty was later revised to include other countries such as Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, and the Philippines,[118] most of the information sharing is performed by the so-called “Five Eyes”,[119] a term referring to the following English-speaking western democracies and their respective intelligence agencies: – The Defence Signals Directorate of Australia[119] – The Communications Security Establishment of Canada[119] – The Government Communications Security Bureau of New Zealand[119] – The Government Communications Headquarters of the United Kingdom, which is widely considered to be a leader in traditional spying due to its influence on countries that were once part of the British Empire.[119] – The National Security Agency of the United States, which has the biggest budget and the most advanced technical abilities among the “five eyes”.[119] In 2013, media disclosures revealed how other government agencies have cooperated extensively with the “Five Eyes”: – The Politiets Efterretningstjeneste (PET) of Denmark, a domestic intelligence agency, exchanges data with the NSA on a regular basis, as part of a secret agreement with the United States.[120] – The Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service) of Germany systematically transfers metadata from German intelligence sources to the NSA. In December 2012 alone, Germany provided the NSA with 500 million metadata records.[121] The NSA granted the Bundesnachrichtendienst access to X-Keyscore,[122] in exchange for Mira4 and Veras.[121] In early 2013, Hans-Georg Maaßen, President of the German domestic security agency BfV, made several visits to the headquarters of the NSA. According to classified documents of the German government, Maaßen had agreed to transfer all data collected by the BfV via XKeyscore to the NSA.[123] In addition, the BfV has been working very closely with eight other U.S. government agencies, including the CIA.[124] – The SIGINT National Unit of Israel routinely receives raw intelligence data (including those of U.S. citizens) from the NSA.[125] (See also: Memorandum of understanding between the NSA and Israel) – The Algemene Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst (General Intelligence and Security Service) of the Netherlands has been receiving and storing user information gathered by U.S. intelligence sources such as PRISM.[126] – The Defence Ministry of Singapore and its Security and Intelligence Division have been secretly intercepting much of the fibre optic cable traffic passing through the Asian continent. Information gathered by the Government of Singapore is transferred to the Government of Australia as part of an intelligence sharing agreement. This allows the “Five Eyes” to maintain a “stranglehold on communications across the Eastern Hemisphere”.[127] – The National Defence Radio Establishment of Sweden (codenamed Sardines)[128] has been working extensively with the NSA, and it has granted the “five eyes” access to underwater cables in the Baltic Sea.[128] – The Federal Intelligence Service (FSI) of Switzerland regularly exchanges information with the NSA, based on a secret agreement.[120][129] In addition, the NSA has been granted access to Swiss monitoring facilities in Leuk (canton of Valais) and Herrenschwanden (canton of Bern).[120] Top secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed that the “Five Eyes” have gained access to the majority of internet and telephone communications flowing throughout Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world. Left: SEA-ME-WE 3, which runs across the Afro-Eurasian supercontinent from Japan to Northern Germany, is one of the most important submarine cables accessed by the “Five Eyes”. Singapore, a former British colony in the Asia-Pacific region (blue dot), plays a vital role in intercepting internet and telecommunications traffic heading from Australia/Japan to Europe, and vice versa. An intelligence sharing agreement between Singapore and Australia allows the rest of the “Five Eyes” to gain access to SEA-ME-WE 3.[127] Right:TAT-14, a telecommunications cable linking Europe with the United States, was identified as one of few assets of “Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources” of the USA on foreign territory. In 2013, it was revealed that British officials “pressured a handful of telecommunications and internet companies” to allow the British government to gain access to TAT-14.[130] Aside from the “Five Eyes”, most other Western countries are also participating in the NSA surveillance system and sharing information with each other.[131] However, being a partner of the NSA does not automatically exempt a country from being targeted by the NSA. According to an internal NSA document leaked by Snowden, “We (the NSA) can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners.”[132] Examples of members of the “Five Eyes” spying for each other: On behalf of the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Security Intelligence Service of Canada spied on two British cabinet ministers in 1983.[133] The U.S. National Security Agency spied on and intercepted the phone calls of Princess Diana right until she died in a Paris car crash with Dodi Fayed in 1997. The NSA currently holds 1,056 pages of classified information about Princess Diana, which cannot be released to public because their disclosure is be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to the national security of the United States.[134] Uses of intercepted data[edit] Other than to combat terrorism, these surveillance programs have been employed to assess the foreign policy and economic stability of other countries,[135] and to gather “commercial secrets”.[136] In a statement addressed to the National Congress of Brazil, journalist Glenn Greenwald testified that the U.S. government uses counter-terrorism as a “pretext” for clandestine surveillance in order to compete with other countries in the “business, industrial and economic fields”.[137][138][139] In an interview with Der Spiegel published on 12 August 2013, former NSA Director Michael Hayden admitted that “We [the NSA] steal secrets. We’re number one in it”. Hayden also added that “We steal stuff to make you safe, not to make you rich”.[135] According to documents seen by the news agency Reuters, these “secrets” are subsequently funnelled to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.[140] Federal agents are then instructed to “recreate” the investigative trail in order to “cover up” where the information originated.[140] Employees of the NSA spied on love interests using surveillance technology of the agency, according to the NSA Chief Compliance Officer John DeLong.[141] See also[edit] Censorship in the United States Freedom of speech in the United States Internet censorship in the United States List of Americans under surveillance List of government surveillance projects Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom References[edit] Jump up ^ Glenn Greenwald. (31 July 2013). “XKeyscore: NSA tool collects ‘nearly everything a user does on the internet'”. The Guardian. Retrieved 2 August 2013. Jump up ^ Mui, Ylan (29 July 2013). “Growing use of FBI screens raises concerns about accuracy, racial bias”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2 August 2013. Jump up ^ James Bamford, The Shadow Factory, 2008, Doubleday, Chapter ‘Shamrock’, especially pg. 163 ^ Jump up to: a b “Return to Sender: U.S. Censorship of Enemy Alien Mail in World War II”, Louis Fiset, Prologue Magazine, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring 2001). Retrieved 5 October 2013. Jump up ^ Kennett, Lee (1985). For the duration… : the United States goes to war, Pearl Harbor-1942. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0-684-18239-4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d “Factbox: History of mass surveillance in the United States”. Reuters. 7 June 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Hall of Honor 1999 Inductee – Herbert O. Yardley”. NSA. Jump up ^ The Center for Cryptologic History. “The Origins of NSA (”. Archived from the original on 18 March 2004. ^ Jump up to: a b c Epsley-Jones, Katelyn; Frenzel, Christina. “The Church Committee Hearings & the FISA Court”. PBS. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Bamford, James (25 December 2005). “The Agency That Could Be Big Brother”. The New York Times. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ DAVID BURNHAM (1 February 1986). “TRUMAN WIRETAPS ON EX-NEW DEAL AIDE CITED”. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Question: Why is Eleanor Roosevelt’s FBI file so large?”. George Washington University. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Eleanor Roosevelt”. History (TV channel). Retrieved 18 September 2013. “J. Edgar Hoover (1895-1972), the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, considered Eleanor Roosevelt’s liberal views dangerous and believed she might be involved in communist activities. He ordered his agents to monitor Roosevelt and keep what became an extensive file on her.” Jump up ^ RONALD J. OSTROW and LISA GETTER (9 December 1998). “FBI Files on Sinatra Detail Links to JFK, Mob Figures”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ MOLOTSKY, IRVIN (9 December 1998). “F.B.I. Releases Its Sinatra File, With Tidbits Old and New”. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “FBI removes many redactions in Marilyn Monroe file”. Associated Press. Retrieved 18 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Cohen, Adam (21 September 2006). “While Nixon Campaigned, the F.B.I. Watched John Lennon”. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ Gumbel, Andrew. “The Lennon Files: The FBI and the Beatle”. London: The Independent. Retrieved 18 September 2013.[dead link] Jump up ^ Laurent Belsie. “US hoped to deport John Lennon”. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ Overbye, Dennis (7 May 2002). “New Details Emerge From the Einstein Files; How the F.B.I. Tracked His Phone Calls and His Trash”. The New York Times. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “FBI campaign against Einstein revealed”. BBC. 8 June 2002. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Albert Einstein: Fact or Fiction?”. History (TV channel). Retrieved 17 September 2013. “Because of his controversial political beliefs-his support for socialism, civil rights, and nuclear disarmament, for example-many anti-Communist crusaders believed that Einstein was a dangerous subversive. Some, like FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, even thought he was a spy. For 22 years, Hoover’s agents tapped Einstein’s phones, opened his mail, rifled through his trash and even bugged his secretary’s nephew’s house, all to prove that he was more radical (as his 1,500-page FBI dossier noted) than “even Stalin himself.”” Jump up ^ Church, Frank (April 23, 1976), “Church Committee Book III”, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Case Study (Church Committee) ^ Jump up to: a b “FBI tracked King’s every move”. CNN. 29 December 2008. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “‘Life Lessons’ From a White House Plumber”. NPR. “When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971, the Nixon White House tried to discredit him. Among other things, Nixon loyalists burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.” Jump up ^ “The Watergate Story”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 September 2013. “The White House “plumbers” unit – named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration – burglarizes a psychiatrist’s office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.” Jump up ^ “Watergate and the Constitution”. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Martin Luther King, Jr. FBI File”. Pickler Memorial Library (Truman State University). Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ MITGANG, HERBERT (6 May 1993). “Disney Link To the F.B.I. And Hoover Is Disclosed”. The New York Times. Retrieved 19 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (“Church Committee”). Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans (Final Report, S. Rep. No. 94-755 (1976) ed.). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Jump up ^ “FISA Court Has Approved Majority of Surveillance Warrants”. NPR. 10 June 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Leonnig, Carol D. (16 August 2013). “Court: Ability to police U.S. spying program limited”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 16 August 2013. Jump up ^ Popkey, Dan (5 August 2013). “Idaho’s Frank Church has posthumous TV debate with Rick Santorum”. Idaho Statesman. Retrieved 21 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Sen. Frank Church Warns of How Easily Government Can Abuse Expanding Surveillance Capabilities”. Grabien – The Multimedia Marketplace. Grabien – The Multimedia Marketplace. 17 August 1975. Retrieved 21 September 2013. Jump up ^ Bamford, James (13 September 2011). “Post-September 11, NSA ‘enemies’ include us”. Politico. Retrieved 21 September 2013. Jump up ^ Campbell, Duncan (12 August 1988). “Somebody’s Listening”. New Statesman. Archived from the original on 2007-01-03. Retrieved 16 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Schmid, Gerhard (11 July 2001). “On the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system), (2001/2098(INI))” (pdf). European Parliament: Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System. p. 194. Retrieved 16 September 2013. Jump up ^ Fiddler, Stephen (1 July 2013). Echoes of Echelon in Charges of NSA Spying in Europe. The Washington Post. Jump up ^ Bamford, James; Body of Secrets, Anchor, ISBN 0-385-49908-6; 2002 Jump up ^ American Civil Liberties (1 May 2000). Privacy Advocates Concerned About Echelon. Jump up ^ Kettmann, Steve (7 June 2000). U.S. Eyes Europe’s Echelon Probe. Wired. Jump up ^ “NSA key to Windows: an open question”. CNN. September 4, 1999. Jump up ^ “Text: President Bush Addresses the Nation”. The Washington Post. Sep 20, 2001. ^ Jump up to: a b Risen, James; Lichtblau, Eric (16 December 2005). “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts”. The New York Times. Retrieved 14 August 2013. “The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article” Jump up ^ “President Visits Troops at Brooke Army Medical Center”. White House. 1 January 2006. Retrieved 15 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting Americans’ Privacy Rights (Part II): Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 13–30 (statement of J.M. McConnell, Director of National Intelligence)”. 18 September 2007. Jump up ^ Rosen, Jeffrey (15 December 2002). “Total Information Awareness”. The New York Times. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ “AT&T Whistle-Blower’s Evidence”. Wired. 17 May 2006. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Poulsen, Kevin (6 March 2008). “Whistle-Blower: Feds Have a Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier — Congress Reacts”. Wired. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ WILLIAM SAFIRE (November 14, 2002). “You Are a Suspect”. The New York Times. Retrieved 20 September 2013. Jump up ^ Josh Meyer (July 29, 2003). “Trading on the Future of Terror”. The Los Angeles Times. Jump up ^ Cauley, Leslie (11 May 2006). “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls”. “USA Today”. Jump up ^ Lichtblau, Eric; Risen, James (16 April 2009). “Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded Law”. The New York Times. Retrieved 16 August 2013. Jump up ^ Bamford, James (15 March 2012). “The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)”. Wired. Retrieved 14 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Greenberg, Andy. “NSA Chief Denies Wired’s Domestic Spying Story (Fourteen Times) In Congressional Hearing”. Forbes. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Duran-Sanchez, Mabel (10 August 2013). “Greenwald Testifies to Brazilian Senate about NSA Espionage Targeting Brazil and Latin America”. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Glenn Greenwald afirma que documentos dizem respeito à interesses comerciais do governo americano”. 6 August 2013. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Ex-CIA employee source of leak on PRISM program”. France 24. Retrieved 17 September 2013. “Snowden’s decision to reveal his identity and whereabouts lifts the lid on one of the biggest security leaks in US history and escalates a story that has placed a bright light on Obama’s extensive use of secret surveillance.” Jump up ^ How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages, The Guardian, 12 July 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2013. Jump up ^ Bridie Jabour in Sydney (12 July 2013). “Telstra signed deal that would have allowed US spying”. The Guardian (London). Jump up ^ The first three days of revelations were: the FISC court order that Verizon provide bulk metadata on its customers to the NSA; presentation slides explaining the cooperation of nine US internet giants through the PRISM program; and the bulk collection of Chinese users’ text messages, which coincided with Xi Jinping’s visit to California to meet Barack Obama. Jump up ^ “NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: ‘I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things’ – video”. The Guardian. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Senate caves, votes to give telecoms retroactive immunity”. Ars Technica. 13 February 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Forget Retroactive Immunity, FISA Bill is also about Prospective Immunity”. The Progressive. 10 July 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2013. Jump up ^ Leon, Richard (16 December 2013). “Federal judge rules NSA program is likely unconstitutional a.k.a. Klayman et al. v. Obama et al. Memorandum and Opinion from December 16, 2013 in Civil Action 13-0851 in United Case District Court for the District of Columbia”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013. Jump up ^ Savage, Charlie (16 December 2013). “Judge Questions Legality of N.S.A. Phone Records”. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2013. Jump up ^ Bill Mears and Evan Perez, CNN (17 December 2013). “Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional”. cnn. Retrieved 18 December 2013. Jump up ^ Kravets, David (16 December 2013). “Court Says NSA Bulk Telephone Spying Is Unconstitutional”. Wired. Retrieved 18 December 2013. Jump up ^ Kevin Johnson and Richard Wolf (16 December 2013). “Federal judge rules against NSA spying”. USA Today. Retrieved 18 December 2013. Jump up ^ Gerstein, Josh (16 December 2013). “Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional”. Politico. Retrieved 18 December 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Ellen Nakashima and Ann E. Marimow (16 December 2013). “Judge: NSA’s collecting of phone records is probably unconstitutional”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts (16 December 2013). “NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules”. The Guardian. Retrieved 18 December 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Jake Gibson (17 December 2013). “Judge deals blow to NSA phone data program”. Fox News. Retrieved 18 December 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “AP Interview: USPS takes photos of all mail”, Associated Press (AP), 2 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement”, Ron Nixon, New York Times, July 3, 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2013. Jump up ^ McCullagh, Declan (30 January 2007). “FBI turns to broad new wiretap method”. ZDNet News. Retrieved 2009-03-13. Jump up ^ “CALEA Archive”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ “CALEA: The Perils of Wiretapping the Internet”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ “FAQ on the CALEA Expansion by the FCC”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (14 April 2006). “ISP snooping gaining support”. CNET (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 17 March 2009. Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (23 April 2008). “FBI, politicos renew push for ISP data retention laws”. CNET (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 17 March 2009. “Based on the statements at Wednesday’s hearing and previous calls for new laws in this area, the scope of a mandatory data retention law remains fuzzy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months).” Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (24 January 2011). “GOP pushing for ISPs to record user data”. CNET (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 27 January 2011. Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (24 January 2011). “Justice Department seeks mandatory data retention”. CNET (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 27 January 2011. Jump up ^ “Hepting v. AT&T: Unsealed Klein exhibits”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Secret Surveillance Evidence Unsealed in AT&T Spying Case”, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 12 June 2007. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ Kevin Poulsen (18 July 2007). “FBI’s Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats”. Wired Magazine (Condé Nast). Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Is the NSA reading your MySpace profile?”, Dawn Kawamoto, CNET News, 9 June 2006. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ Data Priest and William M. Arkin (20 December 2010). “Monitoring America”. Top Secret America, A Washington Post Investigation (Washington Post). Retrieved 27 January 2011. Jump up ^ Cauley, Leslie (11 May 2006). “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls”. USA Today. Retrieved 12 May 2010. Jump up ^ “FBI using cell phone microphones to eavesdrop”, Eric Bangeman, Ars Technica, 4 December 2006. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ McCullagh, Declan; Anne Broache (1 December 2006). “FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool”. CNet News (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ “Researchers Find Clues in Malware”, Nicole Perlroth, New York Times, 30 May 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Tracking a suspect by mobile phone”. BBC News. 3 August 2005. Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ Miller, Joshua (18 March 2009). “Cell Phone Tracking Can Locate Terrorists – But Only Where It’s Legal”. FOX News. Retrieved 14 March 2009. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark. “iSpy: How the NSA Accesses Smartphone Data”. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ “SELinux Related Work”. NSA. Retrieved 10 September 2013. “Security Enhancements for Android provides a reference implementation of how to enable and apply SELinux in Android.” Jump up ^ Hildenbrand, Jerry. “NSA contributes to Android, but there is no secret backdoor”. Android Central. Retrieved 10 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Milian, Mark. “Security-Enhanced Android: NSA Edition”. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Spying on the home front”, transcript, FRONTLINE (WGBH Boston), 15 May 2007. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ Erin Mahoney and Joanne Helperin (3 July 2009). “Caught! Big Brother May Be Watching You With Traffic Cameras”. Edmunds. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Law Enforcement Operations”, Persistent Surveillance Systems. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ link] Jump up ^ “Autonomous Real-time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance – Imaging System (ARGUS-IS)” at the Wayback Machine (archived January 31, 2010), Information Processing Processing Techniques Office, U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “DARPA-BAA-09-55: Persistent Stare Exploitation and Analysis System (PerSEAS)”, U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 18 September 2009. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Kitware to develop advanced video analysis workstation as part of DARPA persistent surveillance program”, John Keller (ed), Military and Aerospace Electronics, 5 July 2010. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Wide Area Airborn Surveillance: Opportunities and Challenges” on YouTube, Gerard Medioni, University of Southern California, YouTube video, 15 August 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Here’s the Plan to Fly Missile-Packed Blimps Over Your Home”, David Axe, Wired, 3 May 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ Savage, Charlie (12 August 2007). “US doles out millions for street cameras”. The Boston Globe. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Cambridge rejects surveillance cameras”. The Boston Globe. 3 February 2009. Retrieved 19 September 2013.[dead link] ^ Jump up to: a b “Mueller: FBI uses drones for surveillance over US soil”. BBC. 19 June 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013. Jump up ^ Kashmir Hill (7 February 2012). “Congress Welcomes The Drones”. Forbes. Retrieved 24 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b rian Bennett and Joel Rubin (15 February 2013). “Drones are taking to the skies in the U.S.”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 24 September 2013. Jump up ^ MICHAEL KIRKLAND. “Drones over America”. United Press International. Retrieved 24 September 2013. Jump up ^ Cosgrove-Mather, Bootie (April 6, 2003). “U.S. Police Surveillance Questioned”. CBS News. Retrieved 31 January 2014. Jump up ^ McFadden, Robert D. (7 August 2007). “City Is Rebuffed on the Release of ’04 Records – New York Times”. New York Times. Retrieved 5 April 2010. Jump up ^ “Maryland State Police Surveillance of Advocacy Groups Exposed”. Center for Effective Government. Jump up ^ Peter Hermann (August 7, 2013). “Protesters out undercover officer, accuses her of infiltrating group”. The Washington Post. ^ Jump up to: a b Norton-Taylor, Richard (25 June 2010). “Not so secret: deal at the heart of UK-US intelligence”. The Guardian (London). Retrieved 25 June 2010. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f “5-nation spy alliance too vital for leaks to harm”. Associated Press. Retrieved 29 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c “NDB und NSA kooperieren enger als bisher bekannt” (in German). Handelszeitung. Retrieved 18 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b unlisted (3 August 2013). “Überwachung: BND leitet massenhaft Metadaten an die NSA weiter”. Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved 3 August 2013. Jump up ^ ‘Prolific Partner’: German Intelligence Used NSA Spy Program, Der Spiegel. Retrieved 21 July 2013. Jump up ^ “Verfassungsschutz beliefert NSA” (in German). Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved 14 September 2013. “Seit Juli 2013 testet der Verfassungsschutz die Späh- und Analysesoftware XKeyscore. Sollte der Geheimdienst das Programm im Regelbetrieb nutzen, hat sich das BfV verpflichtet, alle Erkenntnisse mit der NSA zu teilen. Das hatte der Präsident des Bundesamtes, Hans-Georg Maaßen, dem US-Dienst zugesichert. Im Januar und Mai war Maaßen zu Besuchen bei der NSA.” Jump up ^ “Verfassungsschutz beliefert NSA” (in German). Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill (11 September 2013). “NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans’ data with Israel”. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ Olmer, Bart. “Ook AIVD bespiedt internetter” (in Dutch). De Telegraaf. Retrieved 10 September 2013. “Niet alleen Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten monitoren internetters wereldwijd. Ook Nederlandse geheime diensten krijgen informatie uit het omstreden surveillanceprogramma ’Prism’.” ^ Jump up to: a b Dorling, Philip. “Australian spies in global deal to tap undersea cables”. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 29 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “Sverige deltog i NSA-övervakning” (in Swedish). Svenska Dagbladet. Retrieved 10 September 2013. Jump up ^ Christof Moser and Alan Cassidy. “Geheimdienst-Aufsicht will Kooperation des NDB mit der NSA prüfen” (in German). Schweiz am Sonntag. Retrieved 18 September 2013. “Die NSA hat sowohl mit der Schweiz wie Dänemark eine geheime Vereinbarung abgeschlossen, die den Austausch von Geheimdienstinformationen regelt. Die Vereinbarung berechtigt die NSA, eigene Schlüsselbegriffe in die Abhörsysteme beider Staaten einspeisen zu lassen. Im Tausch für damit gewonnene Erkenntnisse der schweizerischen und dänischen Auslandaufklärung erhalten der NDB und der dänische Geheimdienst PET von der NSA Informationen, die sie im eigenen Land aufgrund gesetzlicher Schranken nicht selber sammeln dürfen. Das geheime Abkommen macht auch die Schweiz zu einem NSA-Horchposten.” Jump up ^ John Goetz, Hans Leyendecker and Frederik Obermaier (28 August 2013). “British Officials Have Far-Reaching Access To Internet And Telephone Communications”. Retrieved 28 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Edward Snowden Interview: The NSA and Its Willing Helpers”. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 29 August 2013. “Snowden: Yes, of course. We’re (the NSA) in bed together with the Germans the same as with most other Western countries.” Jump up ^ Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark. “Ally and Target: US Intelligence Watches Germany Closely”. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 29 August 2013. “The NSA classifies about 30 other countries as “3rd parties,” with whom it cooperates, though with reservations. Germany is one of them. “We can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners,” the secret NSA document reads.” Jump up ^ “Thatcher ‘spied on ministers'”. BBC. 25 February 2000. Jump up ^ Vernon Loeb (December 12, 1998). “NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana”. The Washington Post. ^ Jump up to: a b Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark. “Ally and Target: US Intelligence Watches Germany Closely”. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ DeYoung, Karen (12 August 2013). “Colombia asks Kerry to explain NSA spying”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Greenwald diz que espionagem dá vantagens comerciais e industriais aos Estados Unidos” (in Portuguese). Federal Senate of Brazil. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Greenwald diz que EUA espionam para obter vantagens comerciais” (in Portuguese). Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “NSA’s activity in Latin America is ‘collection of data on oil and military purchases from Venezuela, energy and narcotics from Mexico’ – Greenwald”. Voice of Russia. Retrieved 13 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans”. Reuters. 5 August 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Kelley, Michael (August 27, 2013). “Most NSA Abuses Are Self-Reported”. Business Insider. External links[edit] “The NSA Files (Dozens of articles about the U.S. National Security Agency and its spying and surveillance programs)”. The Guardian (London). 8 June 2013. “CriMNet Evaluation Report” by the Office of the Legislative Auditor of a Minnesota program to improve sharing of criminal justice information, March 2004. [hide] v t e Intelligence agencies and organizations of the United States Intelligence Community Department of Defense Defense Intelligence Agency (Defense Clandestine Service • Defense Attaché System • National Intelligence University) National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency National Reconnaissance Office National Security Agency (Central Security Service) Armed Forces Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency Army Military Intelligence Marine Corps Intelligence Activity Office of Naval Intelligence Civilian Bureau of Intelligence and Research (State) Central Intelligence Agency (National Clandestine Service • Special Activities Division • Open Source Center) Drug Enforcement Administration (Justice) Federal Bureau of Investigation (Justice) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Homeland Security) Coast Guard Intelligence (Homeland Security) Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (Treasury) Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (Energy) Other Director of National Intelligence (National Counterterrorism Center • National Counterproliferation Center • Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive • National Intelligence Council • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity) National Security Council President’s Intelligence Advisory Board Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Intelligence Support Activity Defunct Counterintelligence Field Activity Military Intelligence Service Office of Strategic Services Office of Special Plans Strategic Support Branch Categories: Mass surveillanceMass surveillance by country It was at the urging of a friend over drinks at a U Street bar when Lacy MacAuley first checked out the Twitter account @snufftastic, the wry musings of someone describing herself as a motorcycle enthusiast who lives in the District and happens to be a cop. MacAuley, who works for an advocacy group, said she immediately recognized the picture attached to the cryptic user name as a woman with spiked hair who called herself Missy and for years had taken part in protests around Washington on issues as varied as a proposed oil pipeline and abusive labor conditions. “Missy,” according to a lawsuit filed this week in D.C. Superior Court, is an undercover police officer who illegally infiltrated a student group that stages demonstrations at stores where products produced in sweatshops are sold. The lawsuit offers no concrete evidence that the officer did not attend the demonstrations on her own time as a protester. But to leaders of some of the District’s many protest groups, the allegations offer proof of a long and deeply held suspicion: that police are running a domestic spying operation a decade after a law took effect restricting such activities. Advocates fear authorities are violating their free speech and assembly rights by collecting intelligence under the false guise of maintaining public order. “These are nonviolent, civil-disobedience protests,” said MacAuley, a spokeswoman for the Institute for Policy Studies, an advocacy group that has joined the anti-sweatshop protesters at demonstrations. “I believe the police spy on us to chill dissent.” “Missy,” at left with her face showing above a sign, is an undercover D.C. police officer who illegally infiltrated a student group that stages demonstrations at stores that sell products produced in sweatshops, a lawsuit alleges. (Courtesy of D.C. Superior Court) The D.C. attorney general’s office, which defends the city in civil litigation, declined to comment on the case, saying the city had not yet been served with the lawsuit. “I feel confident that we have adhered to all laws pertaining to the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004,” D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said in a brief statement. In its lawsuit filed Monday, United Students Against Sweatshops identified the undercover officer as Nicole Rizzi. The group also included pictures, videos and tweets described as coming from Rizzi’s now-deleted Internet accounts. The suit alleges that @snufftastic on Twitter was Rizzi. It also does not seek damages but asks for a judgment barring police from continuing to infiltrate the group. It names the mayor, attorney general and Rizzi as defendants. The officer could not be reached for comment; payroll records show she joined the force in 2003. Rizzi apparently posted voluminously on blogs and in other social media, according to some examples cited in the lawsuit and others available online. Most of the messages are personal, but the officer appears to have dropped surprisingly obvious clues to her day job in some of her tweets. She wrote at one point that she had been a police officer for seven years; another time, she urged people to “please bedazzle my uniform.” The lawsuit alleges that D.C. police assigned Rizzi to “work undercover at protests throughout the District of Columbia,” where she “made herself appear to be one of the protesters by carrying banners, handing out flyers, chanting.” The D.C. Council passed a law in 2004 after mass arrests in 2000 and 2002 led to civil rights complaints and lawsuits that eventually cost the District more than $21 million. The Partnership for Civil Justice said it uncovered a D.C. officer who lawyers said at the time not only infiltrated a peaceful protest group but urged them to commit violent acts. D.C. police are now prohibited from infiltrating advocacy groups without top police officials’ permission, which can be granted only as a last resort and with a proven threat of violence. Last year, the District’s auditor criticized police for not complying with the law. Lanier vehemently denied the auditor’s findings. Jeffrey Light, who represents the anti-sweatshop group, said no arrests were made at any of the protests that Rizzi allegedly attended. “I cannot think of any legitimate reason for the police to be sending an undercover officer to those,” Light said. “She was handing out fliers, asking to be put on e-mail and asking about future events. If the police wanted to know that, they could’ve checked the Web site. “ MacAuley, whose story about the officer first appeared in the magazine In These Times, said she thinks she first saw Rizzi at protests in 2009. It wasn’t until November when her friends pointed out the officer’s Twitter account and made the connection to the police. MacAuley said she researched the Twitter user name and other social media sites. “She didn’t make it as hard as she should have,” MacAuley said. “She had been showing up at even small protests that you wouldn’t think anyone had heard about. I had a strange feeling about her, but I didn’t want to get paranoid.” But when she saw the picture in the bar, she said, “I absolutely know who that is.” Light said he pulled public payroll records and extensively researched Internet postings and studied video clips of protests. The lawsuit places Rizzi at United Students Against Sweatshops protests on May 11 on Connecticut Avenue and on May 15 in Columbia Heights. A short video filed in court shows a woman the lawsuit identified as Rizzi dressed in jeans and a white T-shirt, her hair short and spiked, handing out fliers outside a store in Columbia Heights in June. Light, whose lawsuit dubs Rizzi an “agent provocateur,” said he found tweets about how she dresses in civilian clothes to “blend in” and about having to work outside on a day when there was also a protest of the Keystone pipeline. Light said protesters marching on one store found doors locked, preventing a sit-in — a secretly planned event for which Rizzi had been provided advanced notice, the attorney said. Rizzi has posted extensively on the Internet, including two popular blogs — a fan fiction journal for the police show “Rizzoli & Isles” and a blog that recounts personal stories such as working out at the police academy. She has tweeted more than 8,000 times. On July 30, she tweeted, “[expletive} kill me, job. Seriously, This is not worth any amount of money.” “In retrospect, Shishido Strain believes that Rizzi had notified DC police about the group’s plans. “One of the steps we usually take at our protest is to deliver a letter detailing the human rights abuses in their supply chain to the store/business being protested,” says Shishido Strain. “We do not break any laws and if we are asked to leave the store after delivering the letter, we do. After ‘Missy’ began participating in our events, we were twice blocked from delivering letters by the Metropolitan Police Department, who presumably had been tipped off about the time and location of our events. This occurred at the May 15 Children’s Place demonstration and the June 29 demonstration.” ” Rumors have flown for many years that DC police routinely infiltrate and spy on the frequent protests in the nation’s Capitol. But until now, activists have never been able to identify a specific undercover cop at a protest. Now, after months of piecing together evidence, attorneys Jeffrey Light and Sean Canavan working with United Students Against Sweatshop (USAS) have confirmed that under an assumed name, Metro police officer Nicole Rizzi has participated in USAS protests against companies doing business in Bangladesh who refuse to sign the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh following the death of as many as 1,129 workers in the Rana Plaza factory collapse. USAS and its lawyers have numerous pieces of evidence placing Rizzi at protests under a pseudonym. District of Columbia Public Employee Information List records obtained by In These Times confirm that Rizzi has been on the DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) force since December of 2003. USAS filed suit on Monday against the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to stop police from spying on the group’s activities. The story of how Rizzi was uncovered reads like a mix of “Gossip Girl” and “The Wire.” Activists pieced her identity together from her obsessive posting to social media sites, including Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, Facebook, WordPress and Yfrog. Lacy MacAuley, an activist and media manager for the Institute for Policy Studies, has suspected for the past several years that a protester named “Missy” was an undercover cop. “Missy” seemed to be at every protest, but no one knew her. However, MacAuley had no way of proving her suspicions. Then, in November of 2012, MacAuley was at a bar on U Street when a friend recommended that she follow a Twitter account of a funny person with the handle @snufftastic. MacAuley immediately identified the user in the photographs as the person she knew as “Missy.” The user Tweeted frequently about the daily grind of being a police officer in DC. MacAuley says she then spotted Rizzi as “Missy” at an anti-Keystone pipeline protest at the Canadian Embassy on March 21, 2013. That was when MacAuley decided to approach Jeffrey Light, an attorney who works on police misconduct issues, with her suspicions. Light and his law partner Sean Canavan began searching for evidence to peg Rizzi as an undercover police officer. The trickiest part was establishing Rizzi’s real name. But on @snufftastic, she let clues drop. On August 2, 2012, she Tweeted, “They used to call me No Sweat Nico because no matter how hot it was at academy, I never sweat.” Light and Canavan did a public database search of all police officers in D.C. and found only two named Nicole; one was Rizzi. Photos on “Nicole Rizzi”’s Facebook account matched those on the @snufftastic Twitter and Instagram. Moreover, a post on Rizzi’s since-deleted Tumblr account seemed to indicate that Rizzi worked undercover. In response to a post from a reader asking her how flexible her dress code was as a police officer, Rizzi said she wore “ordinary clothes,” but made a distinction between her position and that of a “plainclothes” patrol cop: “In the position I’m in, it’s beneficial to wear ordinary clothes. Plainclothes assignments too, you wear what would blend in.” On April 20, MacAuley spotted “Missy” at a protest outside of the World Bank and snapped a photograph of her (above left). Meanwhile, Light and Canavan dug up evidence that Rizzi was a police officer, including a photograph posted on yfrog of Rizzi pointing out a typo on a piece of mail addressed to the “DC Metropolation [sic] Police Department.” Rizzi’s finger partially covers up the address line, but it appears to read “Director, Intelligence Branch.” Light then began searching for a plaintiff who would have standing to file a complaint against Rizzi for spying. On May 15, Light happened to be walking by a USAS protest outside a Children’s Place clothing store in the Columbia Heights neighborhood of D.C. when he spotted Rizzi handing out protest flyers. Light flagged down USAS organizer Garrett Shishido Strain and alerted him to Missy’s presence. Shishido Strain knew just how “Missy” had wound up at the protest: He had met her four days earlier at a USAS protest outside of a Gap. Rizzi identified herself as “Missy Thompson,” gave Shishido Strain her email and phone number, and asked to be informed of future actions so that she could attend. On May 14, Shishido Strain emailed her about a last-minute protest at the Children’s Place in Columbia Heights the next day. Having been alerted by Light, Shishido Strain and other activists filmed Rizzi handing out flyers at the May 15 like a normal protester. Later, Shishido Strain would spot Rizzi once more, at a June 29 protest against the Gap. In retrospect, Shishido Strain believes that Rizzi had notified DC police about the group’s plans. “One of the steps we usually take at our protest is to deliver a letter detailing the human rights abuses in their supply chain to the store/business being protested,” says Shishido Strain. “We do not break any laws and if we are asked to leave the store after delivering the letter, we do. After ‘Missy’ began participating in our events, we were twice blocked from delivering letters by the Metropolitan Police Department, who presumably had been tipped off about the time and location of our events. This occurred at the May 15 Children’s Place demonstration and the June 29 demonstration.” A law enacted by the D.C. Council in 2004 imposes strict guidelines on police when they investigate or attempt to infiltrate First Amendment-protected groups. The Police Investigations Concerning First Amendment Activities Act of 2004 specifies that the MPD departments can only investigate free speech activities if they can prove sufficient cause that protestors are engaged in crime and they have the authorization of the Executive Director of the DC MPD Intelligence Fusion Divisions (or an appropriate supervisor of similar rank). To send in undercover officers, they have to go through the same authorization process again. But USAS attorneys Sean Canavan and Jeffrey Light say the MPD rarely follows this law. To wit, a 2012 investigation of the department by the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor concluded that the DC police failed to obtain authorization for 16 of 20 investigations into protest groups between January of 2005 and November 21, 2011. (Another seven cases were open during this period, but the files were destroyed before the review.) The report also found that the MPD never obtained official permission to send in undercover officers to protests, but did so in 17 cases. The DC Metropolitan Police Department did not return request for comment. However, in response to the audit in 2012, DC MPD Chief Cathy L. Lainer wrote, the “MPD contends that the Intelligence Branch has consistently gone far beyond what is required by the Act.” Light, who filed the case on behalf of USAS, says that undercover surveillance sows suspicion among activists and hinders collective action. “If they are putting an undercover [cop] there, then they are putting undercover [police] everywhere. That is a big problem for a lot of these groups,” says Light. “You are trying to get people to come out and protest knowing that there is a undercover cop there—it’s a huge problem.” Shishido Strain says his run-ins with Rizzi have already made him wary of strangers who want to get involved in fights for workers’ rights. “I have personally become much more cautious with people who express support for us at actions and others who express an interest in joining our actions, if I do not know them already,” he says. Behold a new legal threshold: let’s call it the 007 standard. Apparently the law now allows secret agents to get up to all manner of mayhem, just so long as it’s something James Bond might have done. Threatening to strangle a woman with her own bikini top? Powering a speedboat, both on and besides the Thames, destroying everything in your wake? Forcing a shark-gun pellet into a man’s mouth, so he blows up like a balloon. All fully lawful, m’lud: can I refer the court to Diamonds Are Forever, The World Is Not Enough and Live and Let Die? This new principle of jurisprudence was unveiled at the high court this week by Mr Justice Tugendhat, as he ruled on whether a case brought by 10 women and one man duped into fraudulent relationships by undercover police officers should be heard in open court or in a secret tribunal. The decision hinged on whether the law governing agents of the state allows them to form sexual relationships with those they spy upon. The good judge believes that when MPs wrote the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) in 2000, permitting undercover police to form “personal or other” relationships, they must have meant it to include sexual relationships. After all, the legislators were bound to have had one particular secret agent in mind. “James Bond is the most famous fictional example of a member of the intelligence services who used relationships with women,” Tugendhat declared, lending “credence to the view that the intelligence and police services have for many years deployed both men and women officers to form personal relationships of an intimate sexual nature”. That came as a shock to the women involved in the case, and not only them. The former director of public prosecutions, Ken, now Lord, Macdonald, thought the judge’s mention of 007 “ludicrous”. Ripa, he told me, is an extremely serious piece of legislation, “one that determines the extent to which our private lives can be intruded upon by the state. It’s undermining of parliament’s reputation as a serious body to suggest it took into account the mad escapades of a fictional spy”. Talk of Bond only highlights one of the absurdities at the heart of this sad, strange saga that first came to light two years ago, when the Guardian revealed how a police officer named Mark Kennedy had infiltrated the environmental protest movement and become intimate with the activists he was monitoring. The absurdity in question is that of proportionality. At least Bond was confronting mighty adversaries with demonic ambitions to destroy the world: no wonder he had to cut the odd ethical corner. But Kennedy and the other cops were, mostly, targeting domestic groups that posed no such threat. It’s true that one undercover policeman caught the Animal Liberation Front activists who had planted incendiary devices in fur-selling department stores (at night, with no one around) – a policeman who has himself been accused in parliament of detonating one of the devices – but the target was usually more Citizen Smith than Dr No. In one case, the police infiltrated an anti-war group called the Clown Army whose existential threat to national security consisted of running around Leeds city centre brandishing feather dusters. Blofeld, it wasn’t. But that the judge thought to mention Bond is perhaps revealing. For even those who would defend Ian Fleming’s character from charges of misogyny would concede that he often regards women as disposable. And that is the crux of this case, brought by a group of women who believe their innermost lives were regarded as so valueless they could be used by covert police as mere props, devices to shore up agents’ cover stories and prove they were good-faith activists rather than frauds. Some may question how much the women involved really suffered: they were with a man long ago who was not what he claimed to be – OK, not nice, but move on. Such an attitude was hinted at in the remarks by a male activist who slept with an undercover policewoman in a tent at a “climate camp” and who told the Guardian he did not want to sue the police because the one-night stand was “nothing meaningful”. But for the others these were not one-night stands, they were relationships of long standing – six years in one case, five in another – that were enormously meaningful. Those involved tell of deep and genuine attachments, the men integrated into their lives as partners, living together, travelling together, attending family gatherings, sitting at a parent’s bedside, even attending a funeral. There are at least four children from these relationships, some of whom have only now, decades later, discovered who their father really was – and that they were born of a great act of deception. The greatest pain seems to have come afterwards. Uncannily, most of the relationships all seem to have ended the same way: a sudden departure, a postcard from abroad, and then silence. Some women spent months or even years trying to work out what had gone wrong, travelling far in search of answers. Others found that their ability to trust had been shattered. If the man they had loved turned out to be an agent of the state, what else should they be suspicious of? Could they trust their colleagues, their friends? And the question that nags above all others: was it all a fake, did he not love me at all? One woman tells friends simply: “Five years of my life was built on a lie.” There was rightly an outcry about the News of the World’s hacking of people’s voicemail messages. But this was the hacking of people’s lives, burrowing into the most intimate spaces of the heart in order to do a job, all authorised by the police. It is state-sanctioned emotional abuse. The present tense is appropriate because there is no reason to believe this kind of police activity, begun in 1968 when Scotland Yard started to infiltrate groups opposed to the Vietnam war, has stopped. The police have not apologised or vowed to give up the practice. Instead, they simply refuse to confirm or deny that the men involved worked as agents at all. A dozen people are taking legal action in total, but those who have followed the case closest – the Guardian’s Paul Lewis and Rob Evans – are convinced there are many more victims, including some who still don’t know that a past partner conned them. Almost every undercover cop so far identified found himself a lover in the group under surveillance: it was the norm, a standard part of their tradecraft. This is a question for the police, whose view of women as so dispensable surely suggests a kind of institutional sexism, but also for the state itself. Either it knew or it didn’t know what these men were up to, apparently in the service of the crown: both possibilities are indefensible. There is no licence to kill, and there can be no licence to break human hearts, to inflict lasting psychological trauma. The James Bond stories are thrillers, not an instruction manual for an unaccountable state. An official body has called into question the criminal conviction of a political campaigner after allegations that an undercover spy gave false evidence under oath during his prosecution. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates miscarriages of justice, has decided that environmental campaigner John Jordan will be tried again in a fresh hearing. The CCRC has found that there is a “real possibility” that his conviction is unsafe. However, it has decided not to disclose to Jordan the reasons for accepting his appeal , arguing that some aspects of the case are too sensitive to be made public. The challenge follows the publication of evidence by the Guardian and BBC Newsnight that an undercover police officer concealed his true identity from a court when he was prosecuted alongside Jordan and others campaigners for occupying a government office during a demonstration. The spy, whose real name is Jim Boyling, is alleged to have given a false name and occupation throughout the prosecution, from the moment he was arrested to the end of the hearing. A total of 56 convictions or attempted prosecutions of environmental campaigners have either been overturned, abandoned or called into question over the past two years after disclosures surrounding the activities of undercover police officers. The CCRC’s decision follows sustained criticism of the conduct of undercover spies who have infiltrated political groups since 1968. A two-year investigation by the Guardian has revealed how the spies routinely slept with women they had been sent to spy on, carried out surveillance on groups campaigning for a proper investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and stole the identities of dead children to create fake identities. The CCRC’s decision focuses attention on another technique used by the undercover officers. Police spymasters are also alleged to have authorised the spies to give evidence in court in the names of their alter egos, rather than their real names, as a tactic to bolster and maintain their cover. The ploy came to light in 2011 when documents suggested that it was used by Boyling, who infiltrated environmental and animal rights campaigners between 1995 and 2000 posing as a cleaner called Jim Sutton. In August 1996, while pretending to be a committed campaigner in a group known as Reclaim the Streets, he was among a group of protesters who occupied the office of the chairman of London Transport and were arrested for disorderly behaviour. During a series of court appearances and a three-day trial at Horseferry Road magistrates court in London, he maintained that he was Sutton and gave evidence as a defendant, according to the documents. He and the others were cleared. Jordan was convicted of assaulting a police officer and unlawfully possessing a police helmet, and was given a conditional discharge for a year.Former undercover officer Peter Francis, a former undercover officer who worked alongside Boyling in a covert Scotland Yard unit and has now become a whistleblower, told the Guardian two years ago that, from time to time, police chiefs allowed the prosecutions of spies to proceed as this helped to boost their credibility with the activists they were infiltrating.Another spy, Bob Lambert who infiltrated environmentalists and animal rights campaigners in the 1980s, has admitted that on at least one occasion, he appeared in court under his fake name to “maintain cover”. Boyling’s covert deployment remained secret until he was unmasked by activists in 2011. Jordan’s lawyer, Mike Schwarz, then lodged an appeal with the CCRC. The CCRC said : “Some of the material on which the referral is based is of a sensitive nature.” Full details were therefore only given in a confidential document to the appeal court and the Crown Prosecution Service, but not Jordan or his lawyer. Instead Jordan and his lawyer were given a summary of the reasons. Schwarz said that the situation was “Kafkaesque” and called on Keir Starmer, the head of the CPS, to share all the documents with Jordan and himself. Boyling has previously stated that he did not commit “any criminal misconduct” while carrying out his police duties. “My actions whilst deployed on SDS duties were with the approval of the Metropolitan Police,” he has said. The other convictions and attempted prosecutions of environmental campaigners were quashed or thrown into doubt after evidence gathered by the police spy Mark Kennedy was withheld from them by prosecutors or police. Jordan said :”Given that these cases come from two officers, yet over 100 undercover officers have targeted political campaigners, the likely number of miscarriages of justice relating to the actions of undercover police officers will run into the hundreds, perhaps thousands. “A public inquiry is needed to flush out and correct these miscarriages of justice.” WHAT WE DO RESOURCES IN-DEPTH ARTICLES BLOG PRESS ROOM ABOUT US TAKE ACTION Maryland State Police Surveillance of Advocacy Groups Exposed by Kay Guinane, 8/5/2008 Government Spying on Nonprofits, Nonprofit Organizations and Counterterrorism Measures, Right to Dissent, Government Matters On July 17, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland disclosed documents revealing that state police engaged in covert surveillance of local peace and anti-death penalty groups for over a year during the administration of former Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich (R). In response, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said he might support a Justice Department investigation into why this surveillance occurred. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, wrote to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff requesting a full account of the surveillance actions and further information regarding the funds used. The ACLU of Maryland was concerned that the Maryland State Police were hiding information on the surveillance of local peace activists. On June 12, it filed a lawsuit against the state police for refusing to disclose records in response to a public information request. Plaintiffs include the American Friends Service Committee, Jonah House, Baltimore Pledge of Resistance, Baltimore Emergency Response Network, and several individuals. A June ACLU press release states, “Documents disclosed during a prosecution for disorderly conduct and trespass against two individuals arrested at a protest at the National Security Agency (NSA) in October 2003 indicated that a ‘Baltimore Intel Unit’ had been monitoring protestors from these groups as they assembled and traveled to the NSA for a protest in July 2004. In order to discover the identity of this ‘intel unit,’ and why the unit was monitoring their peaceful protest activities, the groups filed requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with several federal agencies, including the NSA, in August of 2006.” The press release describes the 43 pages of summaries and computer logs. Maryland State Police’s Homeland Security and Intelligence Division sent agents to infiltrate the Baltimore Pledge of Resistance, a peace group, the Coalition to End the Death Penalty (CEDP), and the Committee to Save Vernon Evans. The surveillance continued even though there were no reports of illegal activity and consistently indicated that no violent protests were being planned. Reports of the surveillance were also sent to at least seven federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The press release went on to say, “Agents from the Division monitored private organizing meetings, public forums and events held in several churches, as well as anti-death penalty rallies outside the state’s SuperMax facility in Baltimore and in Lawyer’s Mall in Annapolis.” The ACLU of Maryland will be filing additional requests under the Maryland Public Information Act. It called on activists across the state to find out if their organizations have been spied on. The ACLU will work with groups that are willing to provide the names of key individuals who could be listed in surveillance records to document the full extent of any surveillance and will ensure that the targets have an opportunity to review the files that relate to them and have those files purged. The Washington Post reported, “Then-state police superintendent Tim Hutchins acknowledged in an interview yesterday that the surveillance took place on his watch, adding that it was done legally.” Reaction to news of the surveillance was swift and negative. Hoyer’s statement said, “While it is the job of law enforcement to protect the public and keep the peace, it is difficult to understand how non-violent peace activists and opponents of the death penalty constituted a threat to public safety. We need to understand why the monitoring of these and other citizens took place — and whether any federal funds were used in support of this program.” Thompson said, “The politically motivated surveillance of dissident domestic groups that have neither a link to terrorism nor promote violence is … a deplorable use of taxpayer funds.” In addition, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) announced an investigation to be led by civil rights attorney Stephen H. Sachs, working with State Attorney General Douglas Gansler and state police chief Col. Terrence Sheridan. The 30-60 day review is aimed at developing new intelligence gui