Tuesday, 11 June 2013

India angry at U.S. cyber spying

New Delhi.

By the U.S. to spy worldwide reports of Internet data is moved to India. She puzzled over this issue - is disturbing that despite being allies of the U.S. Intelligence Monitoring Network is the Computer. Foreign Ministry says it is surprised and concerned by reports of cyber espionage. We will call for returns from the U.S.. This issue will be raised at both national security adviser.

Both countries including national security adviser. Akbaruddin says, 'cyber espionage national security adviser level meeting of the two countries in this case arise. It will be about an explanation from the U.S.. "According to the Washington Post, the U.S. National Security Agency since 2007 emails and other information from around the world computer network intelligence is spying. Boundles Infarmet active surveillance system for the data.

The British newspaper The Guardian says that the U.S. 'Boundles Infarmet' in March this year by 97 billion worldwide computer network information is collected. Information gathered from his arch enemy Iran to the United States there are approximately 14 billion had been collected information.

The second nearly 13.5 billion from Pakistan's information was collected. In the case of India in fifth place. India has raised nearly 6.3 billion Infarmet information.

In Hindi

अमेरिकी साइबर जासूसी पर भड़का भारत

India upsets with america's cyber investigation

अमेरिकी साइबर जासूसी पर भड़का भारत

नई दिल्ली। दुनिया भर के इंटरनेट डाटा की अमेरिका द्वारा जासूसी करने की खबरों से भारत भड़का हुआ है। वह इस बात को लेकर हैरान-परेशान है कि मित्र देश होने के बावजूद अमेरिका उसके कंप्यूटर नेटवर्क की भी खुफिया निगरानी करा रहा है। विदेश मंत्रलय का कहना है कि साइबर जासूसी की खबरों से चिंतित और आश्चर्यचकित हैं। हम अमेरिका से जवाब तलब करेंगे। यह मसला दोनों के राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार स्तर पर उठेगा।
विदेश मंत्रलय के प्रवक्ता सैयद अकबरूद्दीन ने मंगलवार को स्पष्ट तौर पर चेताया कि अगर अमेरिकी साइबर निगरानी के चलते भारतीय निजता कानूनों का उल्लंघन होते पाया गया तो यह स्थिति हमें अस्वीकार्य होगी। पत्रकारों के सवालों का जवाब देते हुए उन्होंने बताया कि भारत और अमेरिका के बीच साइबर सुरक्षा को लेकर बातचीत चल रही है। दोनों देशों के राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार इसमें शामिल हैं। बकौल अकबरूद्दीन, 'साइबर जासूसी का यह प्रकरण दोनों देशों के राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार स्तरीय बैठक में उठेगा। अमेरिका से उसमें इस बारे में जवाब तलब किया जाएगा।' अमेरिका द्वारा विश्व भर के इंटरनेट डाटा की निगरानी किए जाने संबंधी खबरों के अमेरिकी और ब्रिटिश मीडिया में आने के बाद विदेश मंत्रलय ने यह प्रतिक्रिया व्यक्त की है।
वाशिंगटन पोस्ट के अनुसार अमेरिकी राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा एजेंसी 2007 से ही दुनिया भर के कंप्यूटर नेटवर्क से ईमेल और अन्य सूचनाओं की खुफिया जासूसी कर रही है। इसके लिए उसका डाटा निगरानी तंत्र बाउंडलेस इंफार्मेट सक्रिय है। जबकि ब्रिटिश अखबार गार्जियन का कहना है कि अमेरिका ने 'बाउंडलेस इंफार्मेट' के जरिये इस वर्ष मार्च में विश्व भर के कंप्यूटर नेटवर्क से 97 अरब सूचनाएं एकत्रित की है। अमेरिका ने सबसे अधिक सूचना अपने कट्टर दुश्मन ईरान से जुटाई वहां से लगभग 14 अरब सूचनाएं जुटाई गई हैं।
इसके बाद दूसरे नंबर पर रहे पाकिस्तान से करीब 13.5 अरब जानकारी एकत्रित की गई हैं। इस मामले में भारत पांचवें स्थान पर रहा। इंफार्मेट ने भारत से करीब 6.3 अरब सूचनाएं जुटाई हैं।

Data Source Provided From : From dainik jagran

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

US spy leaker Edward Snowden 'missing' in Hong Kong

Ed Snowden explains why he became a whistleblower (Video courtesy of The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras)

An ex-CIA employee who leaked details of US top-secret phone and internet surveillance has disappeared from his hotel in Hong Kong.

Edward Snowden, 29, checked out from his hotel on Monday. His whereabouts are unknown, but he is believed to be still in Hong Kong.
Earlier, he said he had an "obligation to help free people from oppression".
It emerged last week that US agencies were gathering millions of phone records and monitoring internet data.
A spokesman for the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the case had been referred to the Department of Justice as a criminal matter.

“Start Quote

I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded”

Meanwhile a petition posted on the White House website, calling for Mr Snowden's immediate pardon, has gathered more than 30,000 signatures.

However an opinion poll commissioned by the Washington Post suggests a majority of Americans think government monitoring of phone records is acceptable if the aim is to fight terrorism.
Transatlantic fallout Hong Kong's broadcaster RTHK said Mr Snowden checked out of the Mira hotel on Monday.
Reuters news agency quoted hotel staff as saying that he had left at noon.
Ewen MacAskill, a Guardian journalist, told the BBC he believed Mr Snowden was still in Hong Kong.
The Chinese territory has an extradition treaty with the US, although analysts say any attempts to bring Mr Snowden to America may take months and could be blocked by Beijing.

US media response

A USA Today editorial accepts that "the primary result of Snowden's actions is a plus. He has forced a public debate on the sweepingly invasive programs that should have taken place before they were created". But, it goes on, "pure motives and laudable effects don't alter the fact that he broke the law".
An editorial in the Chicago Tribune argues that "some new restrictions" in the US intelligence gathering programme may be in order, adding: "If the government is looking for, say, calls between the United States and terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, why can't it simply demand records of calls to certain foreign countries. Is there no way to narrow the search to leave most Americans out of it?"
Robert O'Harrow in the Washington Post writes that the growing reliance on contractors in US intelligence gathering "reflects a massive shift toward outsourcing over the past 15 years, in part because of cutbacks in the government agencies". He argues that this "has dramatically increased the risk of waste and contracting abuses... but given the threat of terrorism and the national security mandates from Congress, the intelligence community had little choice".

Mr Snowden was revealed as the source of the leaks at his own request by the UK's Guardian newspaper.

He is believed to have arrived in Hong Kong on 20 May. A standard visa on arrival in the territory for a US citizen lasts for 90 days.
His revelations have caused transatlantic political fallout, amid allegations that the UK's electronic surveillance agency, GCHQ, used the US system to snoop on British citizens.
Foreign Secretary William Hague cancelled a trip to Washington to address the UK parliament on Monday and deny the claims.
Mr Snowden is described by the Guardian as an ex-CIA technical assistant, currently employed by Booz Allen Hamilton, a defence contractor for the US National Security Agency (NSA).
He told the newspaper: "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things. I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded."
Mr Snowden said he did not believe he had committed a crime: "We have seen enough criminality on the part of government. It is hypocritical to make this allegation against me."

Vatis: NSA's Prism 'fully authorised by US law'

But he admitted that he could end up in jail and feared for people who knew him.
'Core values' In a statement, Booz Allen Hamilton confirmed Mr Snowden had been an employee for less than three months.
"If accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm," the statement said.
At a daily press briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he could not comment on the Snowden case, citing an ongoing investigation.
The first of the leaks came out on Wednesday night, when the Guardian reported a US secret court ordered phone company Verizon to hand over to the NSA millions of records on telephone call "metadata".

Major US security leaks

Pentagon papers, 1971: Daniel Ellsberg leaks study showing the government had knowledge it was unlikely to win Vietnam war
Watergate, 1972: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reveal extent of cover-up over burglary at Democrat National Committee HQ
Iran-Contra affair, 1986: Iranian cleric reveals illegal US arms sales to Iran, the proceeds of which are later used to fund Nicaraguan Contras
Valerie Plame, 2003: Ms Plame is revealed to be an undercover CIA agent, ending her covert career
Abu Ghraib, 2004: Publication of pictures showing abuse of detainees at Iraq prison by US officials turns initial media reports of abuse into full-blown scandal
Bradley Manning, 2010: The soldier downloads thousands of classified documents from military servers and hands them over to Wikileaks

The metadata include the numbers of both phones on a call, its duration, time, date and location (for mobiles, determined by which mobile signal towers relayed the call or text).

On Thursday, the Washington Post and Guardian said the NSA tapped directly into the servers of nine internet firms including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to track online communication in a programme known as Prism.
All the internet companies deny giving the US government access to their servers.
Prism is said to give the NSA and FBI access to emails, web chats and other communications directly from the servers of major US internet companies.
The data is used to track foreign nationals suspected of terrorism or spying. The NSA is also collecting the telephone records of American customers, but said it is not recording the content of their calls.
US director of national intelligence James Clapper's office said information gathered under Prism was obtained with the approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (Fisa).
Prism was authorised under changes to US surveillance laws passed under President George W Bush, and renewed last year under Barack Obama.
Mr Obama has defended the surveillance programmes, assuring Americans that nobody was listening to their calls.

More on This Story

In Hindi:

______

होटल से गायब हुए एडवर्ड स्नोडेन

मंगलवार, 11 जून, 2013 को 08:34 IST तक के समाचार

एडवर्ड स्नोडेन अमरीकी खुफिया एजेंसी सीआईए के तकनीकी सहायक रह चुके हैं

अमरीका में टेलीफ़ोन और इंटरनेट पर निगरानी रखे जाने के कार्यक्रम की जानकारी एक ब्रितानी अख़बार को देने वाले क्लिक करें एडवर्ड स्नोडेन हॉन्ग कॉन्ग के अपने होटल से गायब हो गए हैं.

अमरीकी खु़फ़िया एजेंसी सीआईए के पूर्व तकनीकी सहायक क्लिक करें स्नोडेन ने मंगलवार को होटल से चेक आउट किया. वहाँ से वह कहाँ गए, यह अभी पता नहीं चल पाया है लेकिन माना जा रहा है कि वे हॉन्ग कॉन्ग में ही कहीं हैं.

टॉपिक

अमरीका

अभी हाल में ही उन्होंने कहा था कि लोगों को उत्पीड़न से मुक्त कराना उनका दायित्व है.
ब्रितानी अखबार गार्डियन ने पिछले हफ़्ते एक खबर प्रकाशित की थी कि अमेरिकी सुरक्षा एजेंसियां लाखों लोगों के टेलीफ़ोन काल्स के रिकॉर्ड और इंटरनेट डाटा एकत्र कर रही हैं.

आपराधिक मामला

अमरीका के राष्ट्रीय क्लिक करें खुफिया निदेशक के कार्यालय के एक प्रवक्ता ने कहा कि इस मामले को एक आपराधिक मामले के रूप में न्याय विभाग को भेज दिया गया है.

"मुझे विश्वास है कि एडवर्ड स्नोडेन अभी भी हांग कांग में ही हैं"

इवन मैक्सकिल, गार्डियन के पत्रकार

इस बीच अमरीकी राष्ट्रपति के कार्यालय क्लिक करें व्हाइट हाउस की वेबसाइट पर डाली गई एक ऑनलाइन याचिका में स्नोडेन के लिए तत्काल माफी की मांग की गई है. इस याचिका पर अब तक 30 हज़ार लोगों ने दस्तख़त किए हैं.
क्लिक करें ब्रितानी अख़बार गार्डियन ने एडवर्ड स्नोडेन की ख़बर के स्रोत के रूप में पहचान उन्हीं के अनुरोध पर ज़ाहिर की थी.
हॉन्ग कॉन्ग के रेडियो और टीवी चैनल आरटीएचके ने ख़बर दी है कि स्नोडेन सोमवार को होटल मीरा से चेक आउट कर गए हैं.
समाचार एजेंसी रॉयटर्स ने होटल के कर्मचारियों के हवाले से ख़बर दी है कि स्नोडेन दोपहर में होटल से गए.
गार्डियन के पत्रकार इवन मैक्सकिल ने बीबीसी से बातचीत में विश्वास जताया कि स्नोडेन अब भी हॉन्ग कॉन्ग में ही हैं.

प्रत्यर्पण की संभावना

हॉन्ग कॉन्ग और अमरीका के बीच प्रत्यर्पण संधि है

हॉन्ग कॉन्ग चीन का इलाक़ा है, उसकी अमरीका के साथ प्रत्यर्पण संधि है. विश्लेषकों का कहना है कि प्रत्यर्पण संधि के बाद भी स्नोडेन को अमरीका ले जाने में महीनों लग सकते हैं. उनका कहना है कि प्रत्यर्पण को चीन रोक भी सकता है.
माना जा रहा है कि एडवर्ड स्नोडेन 20 मई को हॉन्ग कॉन्ग पहुंचे थे. वहाँ अमरीकी नागरिकों को आने पर वीजा दिया जाता है, जो तीन महीने के लिए वैध होता है.
स्नोडेन की ओर से दी गई जानकारी से अटलांटिक पार की राजनीति में विवाद पैदा हो गया था. इसमें आरोप लगाया गया था कि ब्रितानी इलेक्ट्रॉनिक एजेंसी जीसीएचक्यू ने ब्रितानी नागरिकों पर नजर रखने के लिए अमरीकी तंत्र का उपयोग किया.
इस विवाद की वजह से ब्रितानी विदेश मंत्री विलियम हेग ने अपनी अमरीकी यात्रा स्थगित कर संसद में सोमवार को बयान दिया और आरोपों से इनकार किया.
गार्डियन अख़बार के मुताबिक़ 29 वर्षीय एडवर्ड स्नोडेन सीआईए के पूर्व तकनीकी सहायक हैं. अभी वे अमरीका के राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा विभाग (एनएसए) के लिए काम करने वाले ठेकेदार बूज़ एलेन हैमिल्टन के कर्मचारी हैं.

Data Source Provided From : From bbc hindi ,uk

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

हांगकांग में छिपा सीआईए की पोल खोल कर मोस्‍ट वांटेड बना एडवर्ड

FACT about 29 Years Old Edward Snowden, who leaks the NSA surveillance Program PRISM details :

# High school Dropout
# First Job as security guard at NSA
# Worked in CIA as IT security expert # Currently working for a major U.S. government contractor
# House in Hawaii
# Earning $200,000 salary
# Run to Hong Kong after Leaking PRISM documents
# May face 10 Year Prison after arrest

फेसबुक और गूगल के जरिए दुनिया के लोगों के बारे में जासूसी करने वाली अमेरिकी खुफिया एजेंसी (सीआईए) के इस कारनामे का खुलासा करने वाले शख्‍स ने अपनी पहचान सार्वजनिक कर दी है। यह शख्‍स कोई और नहीं बल्कि सीआईए के पूर्व कर्मचारी और इस समय एनएसए के लिए काम करने वाली एक कंपनी के टेक्‍नीशियन एडवर्ड स्‍नोवेडेन हैं। वह इस वक्‍त हांगकांग में हैं। इस खुलासे के बाद 29 साल का यह शख्‍स अमेरिका का मोस्‍ट वांटेड बन गया है। उन्‍होंने कहा है कि वह उस दुनिया में रहना नहीं चाहते जहां आप जो कुछ करते हैं उसे रिकार्ड किया जाता हो और इसी कारण उन्‍होंने दुनिया की एक सबसे खतरनाक खुफिया एजेंसी के खिलाफ मुंह खोला है।

उन्‍होंने बताया है कि सीआईए प्रिज्‍म नाम के एक प्रोग्राम के जरिए दुनिया के लोगों की निजी सूचनाएं इकट्ठा करती है। हर साल 130,000 डॉलर की कमाई करने वाले एडवर्ड का कहना है कि वे एक ऐसी दुनिया में नहीं रहना चाहते हैं जहां हम जो कुछ भी करते और कहते हैं उन्‍हें रिकार्ड किया जाता है। प्रिज्‍म सिस्‍टम के जरिए सीआईए दुनिया की इंटरनेट सेवा प्रदान करने वाली नौ प्रमुख कंपनियों के डाटा तक पहुंच बनाती है।

एडवर्ड की पैरवी करने वाले वकील मार्क जैद का कहना है कि हांगकांग से उनका प्रत्‍यर्पण करवाया जाता है तो उन्‍हें दशकों की सजा हो सकती है। वहीं, हाउस इंटेलिजेंस कमिटी के सदस्‍य और सीनेटर पीटर किंग का कहना है कि एडवर्ड का तुरंत हांगकांग से प्रत्‍यर्पण करवाया जाना चाहिए और कड़ी से कड़ी सजा दिलाई जानी चाहिए।

हाई स्‍कूल ड्रॉप आउट एडवर्ड ने सीआईए के लिए कंप्‍यूटर सिक्‍योरिटी विभाग में टेक्निकल असिस्‍टेंट के रूप में काम करने के बाद एक डिफेंस कॉन्‍ट्रैक्‍टर बूज एलेन हैमिल्‍टन के कर्मचारी के रूप में एनएसए के लिए चार साल तक काम किया। उनका काम लोगों के बारे निजी जानकारियां इकट्ठा करने का था। इस बारे में उन्‍होंने अपने वरिष्‍ठ साथियों को बताया लेकिन उन्‍होंने इसपर कोई ध्‍यान नहीं दिया। उनका कहना है कि उन्‍होंने जो किया है, उसकी वजह से उन्‍हें छिपने की जरूरत नहीं है। उन्‍हें पता है कि उन्‍होंने जो कुछ भी किया है, वह ठीक है।

एडवर्ड का कहना है कि उनके पास किसी चीज की कमी नहीं थी। उनकी सैलरी अच्‍छी थी, उनकी एक गर्लफ्रेंड है और हवाई में घर और परिवार है। उनका कहना है, 'मैं इन सभी चीजों को इसलिए छोड़ देने की इच्‍छा रखता हूं क्‍योंकि मेरी आत्‍मा अमेरिकी सरकार को लोगों के बारे में निजी जानकारियां चुराने का हक देना चाहती है।'

Data Source Provided From : From Denik Bhaskar

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

आडवाणी ने भाजपा के पद छोड़े, पार्टी में संकट

सोमवार, 10 जून, 2013 को 16:49 IST तक के समाचार

आडवाणी गोवा कार्यकारिणी में शामिल नहीं हुए थे

भारतीय जनता पार्टी के वरिष्ठ नेता लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी ने पार्टी के महत्वपूर्ण पदों से इस्तीफ़ा दे दिया है.

'पत्र को इस्तीफ़ा माना जाए'

आडवाणी ने इसी पत्र में लिखा है कि उनके पत्र को ही इस्तीफा माना जाए.

साल 2009 के आम चुनाव में लालकृष्ण आडवाणी बीजेपी के प्रधानमंत्री उम्मीदवार थे. ये जानकारी आज भी उनके वेबसाइट पर मौजूद है.

हालांकि उन्होंने पत्र की शुरुआत में ये भी कहा है कि उन्हें जनसंघ और भारतीय जनता पार्टी के लिए काम करने में गर्व महसूस हुआ है और असीम संतुष्टि भी मिली है.
अभी एक दिन पहले ही गोवा में रविवार को गुजरात के मुख्यमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी को 2014 के चुनाव के लिए चुनाव प्रचार समिति का अध्यक्ष बनाया गया है. बताया गया था कि आडवाणी बीमार हैं और इसलिए कार्यकारिणी में नहीं आ सकते.
1980 में भाजपा के गठन के बाद ये पहला मौक़ा था जब आडवाणी पार्टी की राष्ट्रीय कार्यकारिणी की बैठक में शामिल नहीं हुए.
हालांकि गोवा में नया रोल मिलने के बाद मोदी ने ट्विट किया था, "मैने आडवाणी जी से फोन पर बात की. उन्होंने मुझे अपना आशीर्वाद दिया. उनका आशीर्वाद पाकर मैं सम्मानित महसूस कर रहा हूँ."
आडवाणी के अलावा पूर्व विदेश मंत्री जसवंत सिंह और उमा भारती भी गोवा में शामिल नहीं हुए थे.

राजनाथ के घर बैठक, आडवाणी संकट पर चर्चा

सोमवार, 10 जून, 2013 को 17:19 IST तक के समाचार

सुषमा स्वराज ने पत्रकारों से कहा है कि उन्हें विश्वास है कि वो आडवाणी को इस्तीफ़ा वापस लेने के लिए मना लेंगी.

भारतीय जनता पार्टी के अध्यक्ष राजनाथ सिंह ने जहां लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी के इस्तीफे को स्वीकार करने से इंकार कर दिया है वहीं पार्टी के अन्य नेताओं ने आडवाणी को इस्तीफा वापस लेने के लिए मना लेने की बात कही है.क्लिक करें

भारतीय जनता पार्टी के वरिष्ठ नेता क्लिक करें लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी ने पार्टी के महत्वपूर्ण पदों से सोमवार को इस्तीफ़ा दे दिया है.

टॉपिक

भारत

पार्टी अध्यक्ष राजनाथ सिंह को भेजे एक पत्र में आडवाणी ने कहा है, ‘‘ मैंने फैसला किया है कि मैं पार्टी की राष्ट्रीय कार्यकारिणी, संसदीय बोर्ड और चुनाव समिति से इस्तीफ़ा दे दूं और इस पत्र को मेरा इस्तीफ़ा माना जाए.’’
इस मुद्दे को लेकर भाजपा अध्यक्ष राजनाथ सिंह के घर में पार्टी नेताओं की बैठक हुई जिसमें अरुण जेटली और वैंकेया नायडू ने हिस्सा लिया.बैठके के बाद वैंकेया नायडू ने कहा है कि आडवाणी को मनाने की कोशिश की जाएगी.

सुषमा स्वराज, नेता विपक्ष

सुषमा स्वराज ने पत्रकारों से कहा, "आडवाणी जी से मेरी फ़ोन पर बात हुई है और मैंने उनसे कहा कि मैं आपसे मिलने आ रही हूं, मुझे विश्वास है कि हम उन्हें मना लेंगे. दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है कि उन जैसे शीर्ष नेता को ऐसा करना पड़ा, हम उन्हें मना लेंगे."क्लिक करें
क्लिक करें (पूरी रिपोर्ट: आडवाणी ने भाजपा के पद छोड़े, पार्टी में संकट)

राम माधव, आरएसएस

राम माधव ने ट्विटर पर कहा, "आडवाणी का इस्तीफ़ा दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है और उम्मीद है कि पार्टी उन्हें इस्तीफ़ा वापस लेने के लिए मना लेगी."

राजनाथ सिंह, बीजेपी अध्यक्ष

राजनाथ सिंह ने ट्विटर पर लिखा, "मैंने श्री आडवाणीजी का इस्तीफा स्वीकार नहीं किया है."

कांग्रेस की प्रतिक्रिया

पीटीआई के मुताबिक कांग्रेस ने आडवाणी के इस्तीफ़े पर अपनी पहली प्रतिक्रिया देते हुए कहा, "आडवाणी का इस्तीफ़ा नरेंद्र मोदी की पदोन्नति का पहला परिणाम है."

महेश तवासे, एनसीपी

पीटीआई के अनुसार कांग्रेस के साथी दल एनसीपी के प्रवक्ता महेश तपासे ने लालकृष्ण आडवाणी के इस्तीफ़े पर चुटकी लेते हुए कहा कि 'बीजेपी पार्टी विथ ए डिफ्रेंस है और आडवाणी के इस्तीफ़े से ये साबित भी होता है.'
उन्होंने कहा, "बीजेपी नमो-निया से पीड़ित है और एनडीए का भविष्य तय हो चुका है. यूपीए 2014 के लोकसभा चुनाव में विजयी होकर वापस आएगी."

शरद यादव, जेडीयू

शरद यादव ने पीटीआई को दिए अपनी प्रतिक्रिया में कहा कि लालकृष्ण आडवाणी का इस्तीफ़ा चौकाने वाला है. उन्होंने कहा कि वो और लोगों से मिलकर इस मामले पर चर्चा करेंगे.

सुखबीर सिंह बादल, पंजाब के मुख्यमंत्री और अकाली दल के नेता

सुखबीर सिंह बादल ने पत्रकारों से कहा, "ये बीजेपी का आअंदरूनी मामला है, हम बीजेपी के साथ है, जो फैसला बीजेपी करेगी उसे मानेंगे."

Data Source Provided From : From bbc hindi

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

Edward Snowden (picture courtesy of the Guardian)

The 29-year-old source behind the biggest intelligence leak in the NSA's history explains his motives, his uncertain future and why he never intended on hiding in the shadows

• Q&A with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I do not expect to see home again'

Link to video: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world's most secretive organisations – the NSA.
In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."
Despite his determination to be publicly unveiled, he repeatedly insisted that he wants to avoid the media spotlight. "I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing."
He does not fear the consequences of going public, he said, only that doing so will distract attention from the issues raised by his disclosures. "I know the media likes to personalise political debates, and I know the government will demonise me."
Despite these fears, he remained hopeful his outing will not divert attention from the substance of his disclosures. "I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in." He added: "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."
He has had "a very comfortable life" that included a salary of roughly $200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves. "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

'I am not afraid, because this is the choice I've made'

Three weeks ago, Snowden made final preparations that resulted in last week's series of blockbuster news stories. At the NSA office in Hawaii where he was working, he copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose.
He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year.
As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. "That is not an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world."
On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since. He chose the city because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent", and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.
In the three weeks since he arrived, he has been ensconced in a hotel room. "I've left the room maybe a total of three times during my entire stay," he said. It is a plush hotel and, what with eating meals in his room too, he has run up big bills.
He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them.
Though that may sound like paranoia to some, Snowden has good reason for such fears. He worked in the US intelligence world for almost a decade. He knows that the biggest and most secretive surveillance organisation in America, the NSA, along with the most powerful government on the planet, is looking for him.
Since the disclosures began to emerge, he has watched television and monitored the internet, hearing all the threats and vows of prosecution emanating from Washington.
And he knows only too well the sophisticated technology available to them and how easy it will be for them to find him. The NSA police and other law enforcement officers have twice visited his home in Hawaii and already contacted his girlfriend, though he believes that may have been prompted by his absence from work, and not because of suspicions of any connection to the leaks.
"All my options are bad," he said. The US could begin extradition proceedings against him, a potentially problematic, lengthy and unpredictable course for Washington. Or the Chinese government might whisk him away for questioning, viewing him as a useful source of information. Or he might end up being grabbed and bundled into a plane bound for US territory.
"Yes, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents or assets," he said.
"We have got a CIA station just up the road – the consulate here in Hong Kong – and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week. And that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."
Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. "I am not afraid," he said calmly, "because this is the choice I've made."
He predicts the government will launch an investigation and "say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become".
The only time he became emotional during the many hours of interviews was when he pondered the impact his choices would have on his family, many of whom work for the US government. "The only thing I fear is the harmful effects on my family, who I won't be able to help any more. That's what keeps me up at night," he said, his eyes welling up with tears.

'You can't wait around for someone else to act'

Snowden did not always believe the US government posed a threat to his political values. He was brought up originally in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. His family moved later to Maryland, near the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade.
By his own admission, he was not a stellar student. In order to get the credits necessary to obtain a high school diploma, he attended a community college in Maryland, studying computing, but never completed the coursework. (He later obtained his GED.)
In 2003, he enlisted in the US army and began a training program to join the Special Forces. Invoking the same principles that he now cites to justify his leaks, he said: "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression".
He recounted how his beliefs about the war's purpose were quickly dispelled. "Most of the people training us seemed pumped up about killing Arabs, not helping anyone," he said. After he broke both his legs in a training accident, he was discharged.
After that, he got his first job in an NSA facility, working as a security guard for one of the agency's covert facilities at the University of Maryland. From there, he went to the CIA, where he worked on IT security. His understanding of the internet and his talent for computer programming enabled him to rise fairly quickly for someone who lacked even a high school diploma.
By 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland. His responsibility for maintaining computer network security meant he had clearance to access a wide array of classified documents.
That access, along with the almost three years he spent around CIA officers, led him to begin seriously questioning the rightness of what he saw.
He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led to successful recruitment.
"Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world," he says. "I realised that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good."
He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.
First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone". Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.
He left the CIA in 2009 in order to take his first job working for a private contractor that assigned him to a functioning NSA facility, stationed on a military base in Japan. It was then, he said, that he "watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in", and as a result, "I got hardened."
The primary lesson from this experience was that "you can't wait around for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realised that leadership is about being the first to act."
Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA's surveillance activities were, claiming "they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them".
He described how he once viewed the internet as "the most important invention in all of human history". As an adolescent, he spent days at a time "speaking to people with all sorts of views that I would never have encountered on my own".
But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. "I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."
Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA's surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. "What they're doing" poses "an existential threat to democracy", he said.

A matter of principle

As strong as those beliefs are, there still remains the question: why did he do it? Giving up his freedom and a privileged lifestyle? "There are more important things than money. If I were motivated by money, I could have sold these documents to any number of countries and gotten very rich."
For him, it is a matter of principle. "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he said.
His allegiance to internet freedom is reflected in the stickers on his laptop: "I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation," reads one. Another hails the online organisation offering anonymity, the Tor Project.
Asked by reporters to establish his authenticity to ensure he is not some fantasist, he laid bare, without hesitation, his personal details, from his social security number to his CIA ID and his expired diplomatic passport. There is no shiftiness. Ask him about anything in his personal life and he will answer.
He is quiet, smart, easy-going and self-effacing. A master on computers, he seemed happiest when talking about the technical side of surveillance, at a level of detail comprehensible probably only to fellow communication specialists. But he showed intense passion when talking about the value of privacy and how he felt it was being steadily eroded by the behaviour of the intelligence services.
His manner was calm and relaxed but he has been understandably twitchy since he went into hiding, waiting for the knock on the hotel door. A fire alarm goes off. "That has not happened before," he said, betraying anxiety wondering if was real, a test or a CIA ploy to get him out onto the street.
Strewn about the side of his bed are his suitcase, a plate with the remains of room-service breakfast, and a copy of Angler, the biography of former vice-president Dick Cheney.
Ever since last week's news stories began to appear in the Guardian, Snowden has vigilantly watched TV and read the internet to see the effects of his choices. He seemed satisfied that the debate he longed to provoke was finally taking place.
He lay, propped up against pillows, watching CNN's Wolf Blitzer ask a discussion panel about government intrusion if they had any idea who the leaker was. From 8,000 miles away, the leaker looked on impassively, not even indulging in a wry smile.
Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden's leaks began to make news.
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.
As for his future, he is vague. He hoped the publicity the leaks have generated will offer him some protection, making it "harder for them to get dirty".
He views his best hope as the possibility of asylum, with Iceland – with its reputation of a champion of internet freedom – at the top of his list. He knows that may prove a wish unfulfilled.
But after the intense political controversy he has already created with just the first week's haul of stories, "I feel satisfied that this was all worth it. I have no regrets."

Data Source Provided From : From Guardian

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Barack Obama defends US surveillance tactics

Barack Obama: "You can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience"

President Barack Obama has defended newly revealed US government phone and internet surveillance programmes, saying they are closely overseen by Congress and the courts.

Mr Obama said his administration had struck "the right balance" between security and privacy.
He also stressed US internet communications of US citizens and residents were not targeted.
And he tried to reassure the US "nobody is listening to your phone calls".
Mr Obama was commenting on revelations this week in the Guardian and Washington Post newspapers that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting or tapping into vast amounts of telephone and internet communications data.
Facebook denial The news accounts - subsequently confirmed by officials - roiled Washington DC, with privacy advocates criticising the surveillance as an unlawful intrusion and many in Congress defending the programmes as appropriate counter-terrorism tools.

Analysis

Paul Adams Washington, United States

President Obama said he experienced some "healthy scepticism" about some of the national security operations he inherited when he took office. He's hardly the first American president to realise that it's easier to stick to your core principles outside the White House than inside.
But after managing to keep words like Prism out of the public eye for one and a bit terms, he's having to grapple with how to explain some scary-sounding stuff to the American public.
He still believes that he's successfully navigated between the requirements of security and the need to uphold the Constitution, even if he admits that there are "trade-offs." Those trade-offs have been the subject of rumour and speculation for years but are now glaringly apparent. Mr Obama says he welcomes the debate.

On Wednesday night, the UK's Guardian newspaper reported a secret court had ordered phone company Verizon to hand over to the NSA millions of records on telephone call "metadata".

That report was followed by revelations in both the Washington Post and Guardian that the NSA tapped directly into the servers of nine internet firms including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to track online communication in a programme known as Prism.
Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, said the press reports were "outrageous" and denied Facebook's participation in the programme.
His statement echoed those of other internet companies, who said they had not given the government direct access to their servers.
Mr Zuckerberg said: "We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received.
"And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't even heard of Prism before yesterday."
And on Friday, the Guardian reported that the UK's electronic surveillance agency, GCHQ, had been able to see user communications data from the American internet companies, because it had access to Prism.
The Guardian reported that GCHQ had access to the system since June 2010 and information from Prism had contributed to 197 British intelligence reports last year.
In California on Friday, Mr Obama noted both NSA programmes had been authorised repeatedly by Congress and were subject to continual oversight by congressional intelligence committees and by secret intelligence courts.
The president said he had come into office with a "healthy scepticism" of both programmes, but after evaluating them and establishing further safeguards, he decided "it was worth it".
"You can't have 100% security, and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience," Mr Obama said.
Acknowledging "some trade-offs involved", he said, "We're going to have to make some choices."

Analysis Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent

What this highlights is the way we now entrust our data and our privacy almost entirely to American companies, storing it in their "clouds" - vast data centres located in the US.

Read more from Rory

Senior US Senator Dianne Feinstein confirmed on Thursday that the Verizon phone records order published by the Guardian was a three-month extension of an ongoing request to Verizon. Intelligence analysts say there are likely similar orders for other major communications firms.

The data requested includes telephone numbers, calling card numbers, the serial numbers of phones used and the time and duration of calls. It does not include the content of a call or the callers' addresses or financial information.
'Assault on Constitution' Prism was reportedly developed in 2007 out of a programme of domestic surveillance without warrants that was set up by President George W Bush after the 9/11 attacks.

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY

The Washington Post says one of the many things still unclear about the phone surveillance programme is why Americans didn't know about it. In an editorial, the paper says the public needs more explanation to be able to make a reasonable assessment of whether such programmes are worth the security benefits.
The New York Times says President Barack Obama "is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it". The Patriot Act should be sharply curtailed if not repealed, it says.
The Los Angeles Times says this week's disclosures underscore how US intelligence and law enforcement now "secretly glean vast amounts of information from communications technology".
The San Francisco Chronicle says the collection of phone records "conducted with only the barest legal oversight" is "another policy disappointment from a president who came to office promising to ease the worst of the panicky, ill-considered policies launched after the Sept. 11 attacks 13 years ago".

Prism reportedly does not collect user data, but is able to pull out material that matches a set of search terms.

James Clapper, director of US national intelligence, said in a statement on Thursday the internet communications surveillance programme was "designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-US persons located outside the United States".
"It cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States," he added.
But while US citizens were not intended to be the targets of surveillance, the Washington Post says large quantities of content from Americans are nevertheless screened in order to track or learn more about the target.
The Prism programme has become a major contributor to the president's daily intelligence briefing and accounts for almost one in seven intelligence reports, it adds.
Mr Clapper said the programme, under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was recently reauthorised by Congress after hearings and debate.
In Congress, reaction to the revelations was split.

Ex-congresswoman Jane Harman defends US surveillance programmes

"When law-abiding Americans make phone calls, who they call, when they call and where they call from is private information," said Democratic Senator Ron Wyden.
"As a result of the disclosures that came to light today, now we're going to have a real debate in the Congress and the country and that's long overdue."
Republican Senator Rand Paul called the programmes "an astounding assault on the Constitution''.
But his colleagues Republican Senator Lindsay Graham and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein both defended the phone records practice on Thursday.

More on This Story

Data Source Provided From : From bbc uk

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

US confirms Verizon phone records collection

The court order was described by one civil rights group as "beyond Orwellian"

The US National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans, US officials have confirmed.

The practice, first reported by the Guardian newspaper, has been used to stop a "significant" terrorist attack on the US, a senior congressman said.
On Wednesday, the newspaper published the secret order directing the Verizon company to hand over telephone data.
Civil liberties groups said the details of the report were "stunning".
Senior US Senator Dianne Feinstein on Thursday confirmed the secret court order was a three-month renewal of an ongoing practice.
US House intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers told reporters collecting Americans' phone records was legal, authorised by Congress and had not been abused by the Obama administration.
He said it had prevented a "significant" attack on the US "within the past few years" but declined to offer more information.
Later, White House spokesman Josh Earnest described the practice as a "critical tool" enabling US authorities to monitor suspected terrorists.
'Indefensible'

Analysis

Paul Adams BBC News, Washington

After years of allegations, lawsuits and sporadic, vaguely-worded warnings from members of Congress, finally there is a piece of hard evidence, a window into the reality of post-9/11 intelligence surveillance.
The breadth of this dragnet is breathtaking. The thought that the phone records of millions, this reporter included, have been collected on an order of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a little creepy, to say the least.
Should we demand action to stop it? Some civil rights activists say absolutely.
Such behaviour, they argue, simply runs counter to the letter of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which says there has to be "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", before any of this can happen.
The reality is that since 9/11, the national security establishment and telecommunications firms, with the aid of Congress, have constructed a new surveillance environment.
We just haven't been told about it.

The security agencies and Verizon have not commented.

The document published by the Guardian was signed by Judge Roger Vinson of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on 25 April and lasts until 19 July.
It falls under a section of the Bush-era Patriot Act, which allows access to business records for "foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations".
The order requires Verizon - one of the largest phone companies in the US - to disclose to the NSA the metadata of all calls it processes, both domestic and international, in which at least one party is in the US.
Such metadata includes telephone numbers, calling card numbers, the serial numbers of phones used and the time and duration of calls. It does not include the content of a call or the callers' addresses or financial information.
The White House has emphasised the court order did not authorise US government agents to listen in on Americans' telephone conversations.
But the government could request a wiretap of specific suspicious numbers from the court, which would allow the government to monitor the calls in real time, record and store them.
The measure also contains a gagging order, requiring that "no person shall disclose to any other person that the FBI or NSA has sought or obtained tangible things under this Order".
Reaction for and against the practice has cut across party lines.
"To simply say in a blanket way that millions and millions of Americans are going to have their phone records checked by the US government is to my mind indefensible and unacceptable," Senator Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent, said.
Republican Senator Rand Paul said in a statement he would introduce a bill to prevent security agencies from searching phone records without probable cause on Friday.
But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he had no problem with the practice.
"If we don't do it, we're crazy," he said. "If you're not getting a call from a terrorist organisation, you've got nothing to worry about."
'Millions of people'

The court order

Verizon is required to hand over data "on an ongoing, daily basis" until 19 July
Covers all local and domestic US phone calls, and calls from the US abroad, but not calls made wholly in foreign countries
Metadata to be provided includes telephone numbers, handset identifying numbers, calling cards used and the time and duration of calls
Prohibits disclosure of the order's existence

Mark Rumold, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the BBC the court order covered the telephone calls of "millions and millions of people".

He said the law provided for narrower ways for US officials to gain access to the calls of persons of interest and those who contact them.
"This isn't that," Mr Rumold said.
"I believe the NSA has a running map of domestic communications" enabling officials to track the phone calls of foreign targets to US numbers and then any subsequent calls placed from those numbers.
The EFF has suspected authorities had been conducting such surveillance for years. A report appeared in the USA Today newspaper in 2006.
Mr Rumold believes the firms do not challenge these orders.
The US government has previously said obtaining metadata does not require a warrant because it does not constitute personal information.
But rights groups have fiercely criticised the order, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) describing it as "beyond Orwellian".
"It provides further evidence of the extent to which basic democratic rights are being surrendered in secret to the demands of unaccountable intelligence agencies," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU's deputy legal director.
'Stunned' Two Democratic senators have been pressing the Obama administration to clarify the scope of its public surveillance.
Last year, Mark Udall and Ron Wyden wrote to US Attorney General Eric Holder saying they believed "most Americans would be stunned" by the government's "secret legal interpretations" of the Patriot Act.
The White House came under heavy criticism last month after papers were leaked showing it had gathered the phone records of journalists at the Associated Press.
The story prompted questions from both Republicans and Democrats in Washington about how the White House was balancing the need for national security with privacy rights.
The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media, bringing more cases against people suspected of leaking such material than any previous administration, correspondents say.

More on This Story

Data Source Provided From : From bbc uk

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Profile: Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden's computer wizardry allowed him to rise through the ranks

Former CIA technical worker Edward Snowden has been identified by the UK's Guardian newspaper as the person who leaked sensitive information about US surveillance programmes.

Mr Snowden, 29, had been living with his girlfriend in Hawaii before flying to Hong Kong where is staying in a hotel, the newspaper said.
The journalists who interviewed him at the secret location described him as "quiet, smart, easy-going and self-effacing. A master on computers".
Explaining why he decided to leave the US, he told the paper: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things… I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded."
He said that he chose Hong Kong because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent".
He also believes it is one of the few places in the world that would resist pressure from the US government.

NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland (file image)

Mr Snowden spent some of his early years near the NSA HQ in Fort Meade

Mr Snowden is reported to have grown up in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, and later moved to Maryland, near the headquarters of the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade.
Describing himself as a less than stellar student, he is said to have studied computing at a Maryland community college to get the necessary credits to obtain a high school diploma. However, he never finished the course.
In 2003, he joined the US Army and began training with the Special Forces only to be discharged after breaking both his legs in a training accident.
His first job with the NSA was as a security guard for one of the agency's secret facilities at the University of Maryland. He then worked on IT security at the CIA.
Despite his lack of formal qualifications, his computer wizardry allowed him to quickly rise through intelligence ranks.
By 2007, he was given a CIA post with diplomatic cover in Geneva.
The Guardian said Mr Snowden had been working at the NSA since 2009 as an employee of various outside contractors, including consulting giant Booz Allen.
In a statement, the company confirmed he had been an employee of the firm for less than three months, assigned to a team in Hawaii.
"News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm, it said.
"We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter."

More on This Story

Data Source Provided From : From bbc uk

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Edward Snowden was NSA Prism leak source - Guardian

Ed Snowden explains why he became a whistleblower (Video courtesy of The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras)

A former CIA technical worker has been identified by the UK's Guardian newspaper as the source of leaks about US surveillance programmes.

Edward Snowden, 29, is described by the paper as an ex-CIA technical assistant, currently employed by defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.
The Guardian said his identity was being revealed at his own request.
The recent revelations are that US agencies gathered millions of phone records and monitored internet data.
A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the matter had now been referred to the Department of Justice as a criminal matter.

“Start Quote

I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things”

Profile: Edward Snowden

The Guardian quotes Mr Snowden as saying he flew to Hong Kong on 20 May, where he holed himself up in a hotel.

He told the paper: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things… I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded."
Asked what he thought would happen to him, he replied: "Nothing good."
He said he had gone to Hong Kong because of its "strong tradition of free speech".
Hong Kong signed an extradition treaty with the US shortly before the territory returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.
However, Beijing can block any extradition if it believes it affects national defence or foreign policy issues.
Mr Snowden has expressed an interest in seeking asylum in Iceland.

US media response

However, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post quoted Iceland's ambassador to China as saying that "according to Icelandic law a person can only submit such an application once he/she is in Iceland".

'Core values' In a statement, Booz Allen Hamilton confirmed Mr Snowden had been an employee for less than three months.
"If accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm," the statement said.
The first of the leaks came out on Wednesday night, when the Guardian reported a US secret court had ordered phone company Verizon to hand over to the National Security Agency (NSA) millions of records on telephone call "metadata".
The metadata include the numbers of both phones on a call, its duration, time, date and location (for mobiles, determined by which mobile signal towers relayed the call or text).
That report was followed by revelations in both the Washington Post and Guardian that the NSA tapped directly into the servers of nine internet firms including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to track online communication in a programme known as Prism.
All the internet companies deny giving the US government access to their servers.
Prism is said to give the NSA and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) access to emails, web chats and other communications directly from the servers of major US internet companies.
The data are used to track foreign nationals suspected of terrorism or spying. The NSA is also collecting the telephone records of American customers, but not recording the content of their calls.
'Gut-wrenching' On Saturday, US director of national intelligence James Clapper called the leaks "literally gut-wrenching".
"I hope we're able to track down whoever's doing this, because it is extremely damaging to, and it affects the safety and security of this country," he told NBC News on Saturday.

How surveillance came to light

5 June: The Guardian reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon under a top secret court order
6 June: The Guardian and The Washington Post report that the NSA and the FBI are tapping into US Internet companies to track online communication in a programme known as Prism
7 June: The Guardian reports President Obama has asked intelligence agencies to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber-attacks
7 June: President Obama defends the programmes, saying they are closely overseen by Congress and the courts
8 June: US director of national intelligence James Clapper calls the leaks "literally gut-wrenching"
9 June: The Guardian names former CIA technical worker Edward Snowden as the source of the leaks

Prism was reportedly established in 2007 in order to provide in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information on foreigners overseas.

The NSA has filed a criminal report with the US Justice Department over the leaks.
The content of phone conversations - what people say to each other when they are on the phone - is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches.
However, information shared with a third party, such as phone companies, is not out of bounds.
That means that data about phone calls - such as their timing and duration - can be scooped up by government officials.
Mr Clapper's office issued a statement on Saturday, saying all the information gathered under Prism was obtained with the approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (Fisa).
Prism was authorised under changes to US surveillance laws passed under President George W Bush and renewed last year under Barack Obama.
On Friday, Mr Obama defended the surveillance programmes as a "modest encroachment" on privacy, necessary to protect the US from terrorist attacks.
"Nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program is about," he said, emphasising that the programmes were authorised by Congress.

More on This Story

Data Source Provided From : From bbc uk

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I do not expect to see home again'

Source for the Guardian's NSA files on why he carried out the biggest intelligence leak in a generation – and what comes next

Link to video: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

Edward Snowden was interviewed over several days in Hong Kong by Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill.

Q: Why did you decide to become a whistleblower?
A: "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things … I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."
Q: But isn't there a need for surveillance to try to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks such as Boston?
A: "We have to decide why terrorism is a new threat. There has always been terrorism. Boston was a criminal act. It was not about surveillance but good, old-fashioned police work. The police are very good at what they do."
Q: Do you see yourself as another Bradley Manning?
A: "Manning was a classic whistleblower. He was inspired by the public good."
Q: Do you think what you have done is a crime?
A: "We have seen enough criminality on the part of government. It is hypocritical to make this allegation against me. They have narrowed the public sphere of influence."
Q: What do you think is going to happen to you?
A: "Nothing good."
Q: Why Hong Kong?
A: "I think it is really tragic that an American has to move to a place that has a reputation for less freedom. Still, Hong Kong has a reputation for freedom in spite of the People's Republic of China. It has a strong tradition of free speech."
Q: What do the leaked documents reveal?
A: "That the NSA routinely lies in response to congressional inquiries about the scope of surveillance in America. I believe that when [senator Ron] Wyden and [senator Mark] Udall asked about the scale of this, they [the NSA] said it did not have the tools to provide an answer. We do have the tools and I have maps showing where people have been scrutinised most. We collect more digital communications from America than we do from the Russians."
nsa whistleblower

Snowden is a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA Q: What about the Obama administration's protests about hacking by China?
A: "We hack everyone everywhere. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world. We are not at war with these countries."
Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance?
A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place."
Q: Does your family know you are planning this?
A: "No. My family does not know what is happening … My primary fear is that they will come after my family, my friends, my partner. Anyone I have a relationship with …
I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I am not going to be able to communicate with them. They [the authorities] will act aggressively against anyone who has known me. That keeps me up at night."
Q: When did you decide to leak the documents?
A: "You see things that may be disturbing. When you see everything you realise that some of these things are abusive. The awareness of wrong-doing builds up. There was not one morning when I woke up [and decided this is it]. It was a natural process.
"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party. But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor."
Q: What is your reaction to Obama denouncing the leaks on Friday while welcoming a debate on the balance between security and openness?
A: "My immediate reaction was he was having difficulty in defending it himself. He was trying to defend the unjustifiable and he knew it."
Q: What about the response in general to the disclosures?
A: "I have been surprised and pleased to see the public has reacted so strongly in defence of these rights that are being suppressed in the name of security. It is not like Occupy Wall Street but there is a grassroots movement to take to the streets on July 4 in defence of the Fourth Amendment called Restore The Fourth Amendment and it grew out of Reddit. The response over the internet has been huge and supportive."
Q: Washington-based foreign affairs analyst Steve Clemons said he overheard at the capital's Dulles airport four men discussing an intelligence conference they had just attended. Speaking about the leaks, one of them said, according to Clemons, that both the reporter and leaker should be "disappeared". How do you feel about that?

In Dulles UAL lounge listening to 4 US intel officials saying loudly leaker & reporter on #NSA stuff should be disappearedrecorded a bit
— Steve Clemons (@SCClemons) June 8, 2013

A: "Someone responding to the story said 'real spies do not speak like that'. Well, I am a spy and that is how they talk. Whenever we had a debate in the office on how to handle crimes, they do not defend due process – they defend decisive action. They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general."
Q: Do you have a plan in place?
A: "The only thing I can do is sit here and hope the Hong Kong government does not deport me … My predisposition is to seek asylum in a country with shared values. The nation that most encompasses this is Iceland. They stood up for people over internet freedom. I have no idea what my future is going to be.
"They could put out an Interpol note. But I don't think I have committed a crime outside the domain of the US. I think it will be clearly shown to be political in nature."
Q: Do you think you are probably going to end up in prison?
A: "I could not do this without accepting the risk of prison. You can't come up against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk. If they want to get you, over time they will."
Q: How to you feel now, almost a week after the first leak?
A: "I think the sense of outrage that has been expressed is justified. It has given me hope that, no matter what happens to me, the outcome will be positive for America. I do not expect to see home again, though that is what I want."

Data Source Provided From : From guardian

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Edward Snowden: no guarantee Hong Kong will protect NSA whistleblower

Edward Snowden's decision to flee to Hong Kong as he prepared to expose the US government's secret surveillance programs may not save him from prosecution due to an extradition treaty in force since 1998.

NSA surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden outs himself

'I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong,' Mr Snowden told the Guardian Photo: Courtesy of the Guardian

By Reuters

6:00AM BST 10 Jun 2013

A 29-year-old former CIA employee, Mr Snowden has identified himself as the person who gave the Guardian and the Washington Post classified documents about how the US National Security Agency obtained data from US telecom and internet companies.

While preparing his leaks, Mr Snowden left Hawaii for Hong Kong on May 20 so he would be in a place that might be able to resist US prosecution attempts, he told the Guardian.

"Mainland China does have significant restrictions on free speech but the people of Hong Kong have a long tradition of protesting in the streets, making their views known," Mr Snowden, a US citizen, said in a video interview posted on the Guardian's website.

"I believe that the Hong Kong government is actually independent in relation to a lot of other leading Western governments," he said from his hotel in the territory.

The NSA has requested a criminal probe into the leaks and on Sunday, the US Justice Department said it was in the initial stages of a criminal investigation.

Republican politicians have called for him to be extradited.
Any prosecution of Mr Snowden would likely come under the Espionage Act of 1917, the same law the US government has used against other civilians who have disclosed classified information without authorization.
The United States and Hong Kong signed their extradition treaty in 1996, a year before the former British colony was returned to China. It allows for the exchange of criminal suspects in a formalized process that may also involve the Chinese government.
The treaty went into force in 1998 and provides that Hong Kong authorities can hold Mr Snowden for 60 days, following a US request that includes probable cause, while Washington prepares a formal extradition request.
Some lawyers with expertise in extraditions said it would be a challenge for Mr Snowden to circumvent the treaty if the US government decides to prosecute him.
"They're not going to put at risk their relationship with the US over Mr. Snowden, and very few people have found that they have the clout to persuade another country to go out of their way for them," said Robert Anello, a New York lawyer who has handled extradition cases.
That is especially true when, as in this case, there is no third country to object. "If you're an American citizen, fleeing the US isn't such an easy thing," Mr Anello said.
Because Hong Kong is under the ultimate control of China, the treaty also allows for the refusal of transfers that would implicate the "defense, foreign affairs or essential public interest or policy" of China. The US consulate and Hong Kong officials have so far declined to comment.
Another defense for Mr Snowden, lawyers said, would be to argue a lack of "dual-criminality" - for a person to be extradited, the alleged act must be a crime in both countries.
While that will be for a Hong Kong court to decide, it might be a long shot, Mr Anello said. "My guess is they will be able to find a law in Hong Kong that is very similar" to the US Espionage Act, he said.
It was not immediately clear whether Mr Snowden had a lawyer.
Asked if he had a plan in place, Mr Snowden told the Guardian: "The only thing I can do is sit here and hope the Hong Kong government does not deport me ... My predisposition is to seek asylum in a country with shared values. The nation that most encompasses this is Iceland. They stood up for people over internet freedom. I have no idea what my future is going to be."
Edited by Bonnie Malkin for telegraph.co.uk

Data Source Provided From : From telegraph

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

NSA call database

The United States' National Security Agency (NSA) maintains a database containing hundreds of billions of records of telephone calls made by U.S. citizens from the four largest telephone carriers in the United States: AT&T, SBC, BellSouth (all three now called AT&T), and Verizon.^[1]
The existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on May 10, 2006.^[1] It is estimated that the database contains over 1.9 trillion call-detail records.^[2] According to Bloomberg News, the effort began approximately seven months before the September 11, 2001 attacks.^[3] As of June 2013, the database is codenamed MARINA and stores the metadata for at least five years.^[4] A similar database to MARINA exists for email and its code name is Pinwale.
The records include detailed call information (caller, receiver, date/time of call, length of call, etc.) for use in traffic analysis and social network analysis, but do not include audio information or transcripts of the content of the phone calls.
The database's existence has prompted fierce objections. It is often viewed as an illegal warrantless search and a violation of the pen register provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and (in some cases) the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The George W. Bush administration neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the domestic call record database. This contrasts with a related NSA controversy concerning warrantless surveillance of selected telephone calls; in that case they did confirm the existence of the program of debated legality. The program's code name is Stellar wind.^[5]
Similar programs exist or are planned in other countries, including Sweden (Titan traffic database) and Great Britain (Interception Modernisation Programme)

Lawsuit

	"BellSouth denies phone records were handed over to the NSA" A Wikinews article about the 2006 allegation about telephone records
Problems listening to this file? See media help.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a related suit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, alleging that the firm had given NSA access to its database, a charge reiterated in the USA Today article.^[6] Verizon and BellSouth have both claimed they were never contacted by the NSA, nor did they provide any information to the agency,^[7]^[8] though US codes of law^[9] permit companies to lie about their activities when the President believes that telling the truth would compromise national security.^[10]

Internet monitoring

On May 22, 2006, it was revealed by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and Wired magazine that the program involved the NSA setting up splitters to the routing cores of many telecoms companies and to major Internet traffic hubs. These provided a direct connection via an alleged "black room" known as Room 641A. This room allows most U.S. telecoms communications and Internet traffic to be redirected to the NSA. The NSA used them to eavesdrop and order police investigations of tens of thousands of ordinary Americans without judicial warrants.
According to a security consultant who worked on the program, "What the companies are doing is worse than turning over records ... they’re providing total access to all the data", and a former senior intelligence official said, "This is not about getting a cardboard box of monthly phone bills in alphabetical order ... the N.S.A. is getting real-time actionable intelligence." ^[11]^[12]
On June 30, 2006 USA Today printed a partial retraction about its controversial article the prior month saying: "... USA TODAY also spoke again with the sources who had originally provided information about the scope and contents of the domestic calls database. All said the published report accurately reflected their knowledge and understanding of the NSA program, but none could document a contractual relationship between BellSouth or Verizon and the NSA, or that the companies turned over bulk calling records to the NSA. Based on its reporting after the May 11 article, USA TODAY has now concluded that while the NSA has built a massive domestic calls record database involving the domestic call records of telecommunications companies, the newspaper cannot confirm that BellSouth or Verizon contracted with the NSA to provide bulk calling records to that database ..." ^[13]

Denials

Five days after the story appeared, BellSouth officials said they could not find evidence of having handed over such records. "Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA," the officials said. USA Today replied that BellSouth officials had not denied the allegation when contacted the day before the story was published.^[7] Verizon has also asserted that it has not turned over such records.^[14]
Companies are permitted by US securities law (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) to refrain from properly accounting for their use of assets in matters involving national security, when properly authorized by an agency or department head acting under authorization by the President.^[10] This legalese essentially means that companies can falsify their accounting reports and lie about their activities when the President decides that it is in the interests of national security to do so. President Bush issued a presidential memorandum on May 5, 2006 delegating authority to make such a designation to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, just as the NSA call database scandal appeared in the media.^[15]

Qwest Communications

The USA Today report indicated that Qwest's then CEO, Joseph Nacchio, doubted the NSA's assertion that warrants were unnecessary. In negotiations, the NSA pressured the company to turn over the records. Qwest attorneys asked the NSA to obtain approval from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. When the NSA indicated they would not seek this approval, Qwest's new CEO Richard Notebaert declined NSA's request for access. Later, T-Mobile explicitly stated they do not participate in warrantless surveillance.^[16]

Contents of the database

According to the article, the database is "the largest database ever assembled in the world", and contains call-detail records (CDRs) for all phone calls, domestic and international. A call-detail record consists of the phone numbers of the callers and recipients along with time and duration of the call. While the database does not contain specific names or addresses, that information is widely available from non-classified sources.^[1]
According to the research group TeleGeography, AT&T (including the former SBC), Verizon, and BellSouth connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001.^[17] It is reported that all four companies were paid to provide the information to the NSA.^[18]^[19]

Uses of the database

Although such a database of phone records would not be useful on its own as a tool for national security, it could be used as an element of broader national security analytical efforts and data mining. These efforts could involve analysts using the data to connect phone numbers with names and links to persons of interest.^[20]^[21] Such efforts have been the focus of the NSA's recent attempts to acquire key technologies from high tech firms in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Link analysis software, such as Link Explorer or the Analyst's Notebook, is used by law enforcement to organize and view links that are demonstrated through such information as telephone and financial records, which are imported into the program from other sources.^[22] Neural network software is used to detect patterns, classify and cluster data as well as forecast future events.^[23]
Using relational mathematics it is possible to find out if someone changes their telephone number by analyzing and comparing calling patterns.^{[citation needed]}
ThinThread, a system designed largely by William Binney, which pre-dated this database, but was discarded for the Trailblazer Project, may have introduced some of the technology which is used to analyze the data [3]. Where ThinThread encrypted privacy data, however, no such measures have been reported with respect to the current system.

Government and public response

In response, the Bush administration defended its activities, while neither specifically confirming or denying the existence of the potentially illegal program.^[24] According to the Deputy White House Press Secretary, "The intelligence activities undertaken by the United States government are lawful, necessary and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks."^[1]
Senator Arlen Specter has said that he will hold hearings with the telecommunications CEOs involved. The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to question Air Force General Michael Hayden about the data-gathering during his confirmation hearings as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Hayden was in charge of the NSA from 1999 through 2005.^[25]
Commenting on the apparent incompatibility of the NSA call database with previous assurances by President Bush, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told Fox News, "I’m not going to defend the indefensible. The Bush administration has an obligation to level with the American people... I don’t think the way they’ve handled this can be defended by reasonable people." ^[26]
- Later on Meet the Press, Gingrich stated that "everything that has been done is totally legal," and he said the NSA program was defending the indefensible, "because they refuse to come out front and talk about it."^[27]
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News, "The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy?"^[28]
House Republican Caucus chairwoman Deborah Pryce said, "While I support aggressively tracking al-Qaida, the administration needs to answer some tough questions about the protection of our civil liberties." ^[29]
Former Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner said, "I am concerned about what I read with regard to NSA databases of phone calls."^[30]
Democratic senator Patrick Leahy, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said "Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida? These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything. ... Where does it stop?"^[29]
On May 15, 2006, FCC Commissioner Copps called for the FCC to open an inquiry into the lawfulness of the disclosure of America's phone records.^[31]
In May, 2006, Pat Robertson called the NSA wire-tapping a "tool of oppression." ^[32]
In May 2006, former majority leader Trent Lott stated "What are people worried about? What is the problem? Are you doing something you're not supposed to?" ^[33]
On May 16, 2006, both Verizon^[34] and BellSouth^[35] stated not only did they not hand over records, but that they were never contacted by the NSA in the first place.
On June 30, 2006, Bloomberg reported the NSA "asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks," citing court papers filed June 23, 2006 by lawyers in McMurray v. Verizon Communications Inc., 06cv3650, in the Southern District of New York.^[36]

Polls

In a new Newsweek poll of 1007 people conducted between May 11 and May 12, 2006, 53% of Americans said that "the NSA's surveillance program goes too far in invading privacy " and 57% said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power" while 41% see it as a tool to "combat terrorism" and 35% think the Administration’s actions were appropriate.^[37]

According to a Washington Post telephone poll of 502 people, conducted on May 11, 63% of the American public supports the program, 35% do not; 66% were not bothered by the idea of the NSA having a record of their calls, while 34% were; 56% however thought it was right for the knowledge of the program to be released while 42% thought it was not.^[38] These results were later contradicted by further polls on the subject, specifically a USA Today/Gallup poll showing 51% opposition and 43% support for the program.^[39]

Political action

The Senate Armed Services Committee was scheduled to hold hearings with NSA whistle-blower Russell Tice the week following the revelation of the NSA call database. Tice indicated that his testimony would reveal information on additional illegal activity related to the NSA call database that has not yet been made public, and that even a number of NSA employees believe what they are doing is illegal. Tice also told the National Journal that he "will not confirm or deny" if his testimony will include information on spy satellites being used to spy on American citizens from space.^[40] However, these hearings did not occur and the reason why is unknown.

Lawsuits

Claims

New Jersey

Spurred by the public disclosure of the NSA call database, a lawsuit was filed against Verizon on May 12, 2006 at the Federal District Court in Manhattan by Princeton, N.J.-based attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran. The lawsuit seeks $1,000 for each violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and would total approximately $5 billion if the court certifies the suit as a class-action lawsuit.^[41]

Oregon

On May 12, 2006, an Oregon man filed a lawsuit against Verizon Northwest for $1 billion.^[42]

Maine

On May 13, 2006, a complaint in Maine was filed by a group of 21 Maine residents who asked the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to demand answers from Verizon about whether it provided telephone records and information to the federal government without customers' knowledge or consent. Maine law requires the PUC to investigate complaints against a utility if a petition involves at least 10 of the utility's customers.^[43]

California (E.F.F.)

Shortly after the NSA call database story surfaced, a San Francisco lawsuit, Hepting v. AT&T, was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.^[44]^[45]

Justice Department response

The Los Angeles Times reported on May 14, 2006, that the U.S. Justice Department called for an end to an eavesdropping lawsuit against AT&T Corp., citing possible damage from the litigation to national security.^[44]^[46]
The US government indicated in an April 28 Statement of Interest in the AT&T case, that it intends to invoke the State Secrets Privilege in a bid to dismiss the action.

Legal status

The NSA call database was not approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The FISC was established in 1978 to secretly authorize access to call-identifying information and interception of communications of suspected foreign agents on U.S. soil.^[44] Stanford Law School's Chip Pitts has a good overview of the relevant legal concerns in The Washington Spectator.^[47]
Separate from the question of whether the database is illegal under FISA, one may ask whether the call detail records are covered by the privacy protection of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is unclear. As the U.S. has no explicit constitutional guarantee on the secrecy of correspondence, any protection on communications is an extension by litigation of the privacy provided to "houses and papers".^[48] This again is dependent on the flexuous requirement of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The most relevant U.S. Supreme Court case is Smith v. Maryland.^[49] In that case, the Court addressed pen registers, which are mechanical devices that record the numbers dialed on a telephone; a pen register does not record call contents. The Court ruled that pen registers are not covered by the Fourth Amendment: "The installation and use of a pen register, [...] was not a 'search,' and no warrant was required." More generally, "This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he [...] voluntarily turns over to third parties."
The data collecting activity may however be illegal under other telecommunications privacy laws.

The Stored Communications Act

The 1986 Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701) forbids turnover of information to the government without a warrant or court order, the law gives consumers the right to sue for violations of the act.^[50]^[51]

"A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication...only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure"^[52]

However, the Stored Communications Act also authorizes phone providers to conduct electronic surveillance if the Attorney General of the United States certifies that a court order or warrant is not required and that the surveillance is required:

[Telephone providers] are authorized to...intercept...communications or to conduct electronic surveillance...if such provider...has been provided with a certification in writing by...the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required.^[53]

The Act provides for special penalties for violators when "the offense is committed...in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State."^[52]
Finally, the act allows any customer whose telephone company provided this information to sue that company in civil court for (a) actual damages to the consumer, (b) any profits by the telephone company, (c) punitive damages, and (d) attorney fees. The minimum amount a successful customer will recover under (a) and (b) is $1,000:

"The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court." (18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) damages)^[52]

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

President Clinton signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act states that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."^[54]

Historical background

Main article: Church Committee

The FISC was inspired by the recommendations of the Church Committee,^[55] which investigated a wide range of intelligence and counter-intelligence incidents and programs, including some U.S. Army programs and the FBI program COINTELPRO.
In 1971, the US media reported that COINTELPRO targeted thousands of Americans during the 1960s, after several stolen FBI dossiers were passed to news agencies.^[56] The Church Committee Senate final report, which investigated COINTELPRO declared that:

“

Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone "bugs," surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous -- and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations -- have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity.^[57]^[58]

”

Legality

The legality of blanket wiretapping has never been sustained in court, but on July 10, 2008 the US Congress capitulated to the administration in granting blanket immunity to the administration and telecom industry for potentially illegal domestic surveillance. ^[59] The bill was passed during the crucible of the 2008 presidential campaign, and was supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who was campaigning against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for the presidency.^[59]
Obama provided qualified support for the bill. He promised to "carefully monitor" the program for abuse, but said that, "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise."^[59] It is difficult to argue that appropriate safeguards are in place, when CDRs from all the major telecommunications companies are provided to the NSA.

Data Source Provided From : From Wikipedia

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

National Security Agency logo

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA "Warrantless Wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",^[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. Critics, however, claimed that it was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and their handling of several hot button issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.^[2] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.
During the Obama Administration, the NSA has officially continued operating under the new FISA guidelines.^[3] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.^[4]

Overview

All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" "glitch" resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.^[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.
The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic.^[6] Critics said that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.^[7] The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).^[8] FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.^[9] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.^[10]
After an article about the program, (which had been code-named Stellar Wind), was published in The New York Times on December 16, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed its existence.^[11]^[12]^[13] The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.^[14] Critics of The Times have alleged that executive editor Bill Keller had withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential election, and that the story that was ultimately published by The Times was essentially the same as reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had submitted in 2004.^[15] In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times.^[16] The FBI began investigating leaks about the program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case.^[17]
Gonzales said the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government "has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." and that one party to the conversation is "outside of the United States".^[18] The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy has expanded to include the press's role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of Presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.^[19]

Developments

In mid-August 2007, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in two lawsuits challenging the surveillance program. The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of civil suits against the government and telecommunications companies over NSA surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker. One of the cases is a class-action lawsuit against AT&T, focusing on allegations that the company provided the NSA with its customers' phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation. Plaintiffs in the second case are the al-Haramain Foundation Islamic charity and two of its lawyers.^[20]^[21]
On November 16, 2007, the three judges — M. Margaret McKeown, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Harry Pregerson — issued a 27-page ruling that the charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, could not introduce a key piece of evidence in its case because it fell under the government's claim of state secrets, although the judges said that "In light of extensive government disclosures, the government is hard-pressed to sustain its claim that the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret."^[22]^[23]
In an August 14, 2007, question-and-answer session with the El Paso Times newspaper which was published on August 22, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector helped the warrantless surveillance program. McConnell argued that the companies deserved immunity for their help: "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies".^[24] Plaintiffs in the AT&T suit subsequently filed a motion with the court to have McConnell's acknowledgement admitted as evidence in their case.^[25]
The program may face an additional legal challenge in the appeal of two Albany, New York, men convicted of criminal charges in an FBI anti-terror sting operation. Their lawyers say they have evidence the men were the subjects of NSA electronic surveillance, which was used to obtain their convictions but not made public at trial or made available in response to discovery requests by defense counsel at that time.^[26]
In an unusual related legal development, on October 13, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Joseph P. Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest Communications, is appealing an April 2007 conviction on 19 counts of insider trading by alleging that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal. According to court documents unsealed in Denver in early October as part of Nacchio's appeal, the NSA approached Qwest about participating in a warrantless surveillance program more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks which have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its efforts. Nacchio is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.^[27] According to a lawsuit filed against other telecommunications companies for violating customer privacy, AT&T began preparing facilities for the NSA to monitor "phone call information and Internet traffic" seven months before 9/11.^[28]
On August 17, 2007, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said it would consider a request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union which asked the intelligence court to make public its recent, classified rulings on the scope of the government's wiretapping powers. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, presiding judge of the FISC, signed an order calling the ACLU's motion "an unprecedented request that warrants further briefing."^[29] The FISC ordered the government to respond on the issue by August 31, saying that anything involving classified material could be filed under court seal.^[30]^[31] On the August 31 deadline, the National Security Division of the Justice Department filed a response in opposition to the ACLU's motion with the court.^[32]
In previous developments, the case ACLU v. NSA was dismissed on July 6, 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.^[33] The court did not rule on the spying program's legality. Instead, its 65-page opinion declared that the American Civil Liberties Union and the others who brought the case - including academics, lawyers and journalists - did not have the legal standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance.^[34] Detroit District Court judge Anna Diggs Taylor had originally ruled on August 17, 2006 that the program is illegal under FISA as well as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution.^[35]^[36]^[37] Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, discovered that at the time of the ruling Taylor "serves as a secretary and trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case."^[38] On February 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, letting stand the earlier decision dismissing the case.^[39]
On September 28, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825).^[40] That bill now has been passed to the U.S. Senate where three competing, mutually-exclusive, bills—the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455) (the DeWine bill), the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455) (the Specter bill), and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S.3001) (the Specter-Feinstein bill) -- were themselves referred for debate to the full Senate by the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 13, 2006.^[41] Each of these bills would in some form broaden the statutory authorization for electronic surveillance, while still subjecting it to some restrictions. The Specter-Feinstein bill would extend the peacetime period for obtaining retroactive warrants to seven days and implement other changes to facilitate eavesdropping while maintaining FISA court oversight. The DeWine bill, the Specter bill, and the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (passed by the House) would all authorize some limited forms or periods of warrantless electronic surveillance subject to additional programmatic oversight by either the FISC (Specter bill) or Congress (DeWine and Wilson bills).
On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed U.S. Senate leaders by letter that the program would not be reauthorized by the President.^[2] "Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," according to his letter.^[42]
On September 18, 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an Internet-privacy advocacy group, filed a new lawsuit against the NSA, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other government agencies and individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless surveillance. They sued on behalf of AT&T customers to seek redress for what the EFF alleges to be an illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. An earlier, ongoing suit by the EFF may be bogged down by the recent changes to FISA provisions, but these are not expected to impact this new case.^[43]^[44]
On January 23, 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor when it urged U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to set aside a ruling in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Obama, et al.^[45] The Obama administration also sided with the former administration in its legal defense of July, 2008 legislation that immunized the nation's telecommunications companies from lawsuits accusing them of complicity in the eavesdropping program, according to testimony by Attorney General Eric Holder.^[46]
On March 31, 2010, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, ruled that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been "subjected to unlawful surveillance", the judge said the government was liable to pay them damages.^[47]

Trailblazer and whistleblowing prosecution

The Trailblazer Project, an NSA IT project that began in 2000, has also been linked to warrantless surveillance. It was chosen over ThinThread, which had included some privacy protections. Three ex-NSA staffers, William Binney, J. Kirke Wiebe, and Ed Loomis, all of whom had quit NSA over concerns about the legality of the agency's activities, teamed with Diane Roark, a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, to ask the Inspector General to investigate. A major source for the IG report was Thomas Andrews Drake, an ex-Air Force senior NSA official with an expertise in computers. Siobhan Gorman of The Baltimore Sun published a series of articles about Trailblazer in 2006-2007.
The FBI agents investigating the 2005 The New York Times story eventually made their way to The Baltimore Sun story, and then to Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Roark, and Drake. In 2007 armed FBI agents raided the houses of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe. Binney claimed they pointed guns at his head. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union. None were charged with crimes except for Drake. In 2010 he was indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917, as part of Obama's unprecedented crackdown on leakers.^[48]^[49] The charges against him were dropped in 2011 and he pled to a single misdemeanor.

Background

FISA

Main article: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) regulates U.S. government agencies' carrying out of physical searches, and electronic surveillance, wherein a significant purpose is the gathering of foreign intelligence information. "Foreign intelligence information" is defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801 as information necessary to protect the U.S. or its allies against actual or potential attack from a foreign power, sabotage or international terrorism. FISA defines a "foreign power" as a foreign government or any faction(s) of a foreign government not substantially composed of US persons, or any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. FISA provides for both criminal and civil liability for intentional electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.
FISA provides two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant for the electronic cameras if "there is probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3). Second, FISA permits the President or his delegate to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1).^[50]

NSA surveillance program

Main article: NSA electronic surveillance program

Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct surveillance of certain telephone calls without obtaining a warrant from the FISC as stipulated by FISA (see 50 U.S.C. § 1802 50 U.S.C. § 1809 ). The complete details of the executive order are not known, but according to statements by the administration,^[51] the authorization covers telephone calls originating overseas from or to a person suspected of having links to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or its affiliates even when the other party to the call is within the US. The legality of surveillance involving US persons and extent of this authorization is at the core of this controversy which has steadily grown to include:

Constitutional issues concerning the separation of powers and the Fourth Amendment immunities.
The effectiveness^[52] and scope^[53] of the program.
The legality of the leaking and publication of classified information and the implications for U.S. national security arising from the disclosure.
Adequacy of FISA as a tool for fighting terrorism

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Resolution

Main article: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

About a week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) which authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The administration has argued that the language used in the AUMF implicitly authorized the President to exercise those powers "incident to the waging of war", including the collection of enemy intelligence, FISA provisions notwithstanding.^[8]
On January 20, 2006, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee along with lone co-sponsor Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. Res. 350, a resolution "expressing the sense of the Senate that Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens."^[54]^[55] This non-binding resolution died in the Senate without being brought up for debate or being voted upon.^[56]

Legal issues

The NSA surveillance controversy involves legal issues that fall into two broad disciplines: statutory interpretation and Constitutional law. Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to the facts of a given case. Constitutional law is the body of law that governs the interpretation of the United States Constitution and covers areas of law such as the relationship between the federal government and state governments, the rights of individuals, and other fundamental aspects of the application of government authority in the United States.^[57]

Statutory interpretation issues

A court of law faced with determining the legality of the NSA program would have to first grapple with the statutory interpretation of FISA itself^[58] Since FISA has the potential to raise certain Constitutional conflicts relating to the powers assigned to Congress and the Executive in Articles I and II respectively, the canon of constitutional avoidance requires a court to first determine if the FISA statutes can be "fairly read" to avoid Constitutional conflict.^[59] Assuming such an interpretation can be found, the question then turns to whether or not the NSA wiretap authorizations were violative of the statute as so read. Without knowing how a court would resolve the first issue and the classified specifics of the program itself, it is not possible to predict the outcome.

FISA exclusivity provision

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (January 2010)

18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) provides in relevant part that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)... and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted." The interpretation of this clause is central to the controversy because both sides agree that the NSA program operates outside of the procedural framework provided by FISA. The interpretive conflict arises because other provisions of FISA, including the criminal sanctions subpart 50 U.S.C. § 1809 include an "unless authorized by statute" provision, raising the issue of statutory ambiguity. The administration's position is that the AUMF is an authorizing statute which satisfies the FISA criteria. Critics contend that by the canon of Ejusdem generis (the doctrine that if ambiguity exists, generic legislative language must yield to specific provisions), the specific provisions of the FISA restrictions supersede the general authority granted by the AUMF. In their letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee^[60] a group of law professors and former government officials addressed this issue directly:

the DOJ’s argument rests on an unstated general “implication” from the AUMF that directly contradicts express and specific language in FISA. Specific and “carefully drawn” statutes prevail over general statutes where there is a conflict. Morales v. TWA, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384-85 (1992) (quoting International Paper Co. v. Ouelette, 479 U.S. 481, 494 (1987)). In FISA, Congress has directly and specifically spoken on the question of domestic warrantless wiretapping, including during wartime, and it could not have spoken more clearly.

The U.S. Supreme Court faced a similar issue in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld where the government claimed that the AUMF authorized the President to detain U.S. citizens designated as an enemy combatant despite its lack of specific language to that intent and notwithstanding the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) which requires that the United States government cannot detain an American citizen except by an act of Congress. In that case, the Court ruled:

[B]ecause we conclude that the Government’s second assertion ["that §4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained "pursuant to an Act of Congress" [the AUMF] is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals .. and that the AUMF satisfied §4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress"

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld however, the court rejected the government's argument that the AUMF implicitly authorized the President to establish military commissions in violation of the UCMJ. The opinion of the Court held:

Neither of these congressional Acts, [AUMF or ATC] however, expands the President’s authority to convene military commissions. First, while we assume that the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004) (plurality opinion), and that those powers include the authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances, see id., at 518; Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28–29; see also Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 11, there is nothing in the text or legislative history of the AUMF even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in Article 21 of the UCMJ. Cf. Yerger, 8 Wall., at 105 (“Repeals by implication are not favored”)

Determining when explicit congressional authorization is and is not required appears by this decision to require a court to first determine whether an implicit authorization would amount to a "repeal by implication" of the governing Act.
The exclusivity clause also raises a separation of powers issue. (See Constitutional law issues below)

Domestic versus foreign intelligence

The arguments against the legality of the NSA fall into two broad categories, those who argue that FISA raises no Constitutional issues and therefore the NSA program is illegal on its face^[61]^[62] and those who argue that FISA (perhaps purposefully) raises a Constitutional conflict, one which they believe should be resolved in Congress' favor.^[63]
Common to both of these views is the argument that the participation of "US persons" as defined in FISA 50 U.S.C. § 1801 renders the objectional intercepts "domestic" in nature.^[64] Those advocating the "no constitutional issue" position, argue that Congress has the authority it needs to legislate in this area under Article I and the Fourth Amendment^[65] while those who see a constitutional conflict^[63] acknowledge that the existing delineation between Congressional and Executive authority in this area is not clear^[66] but that Congress, in including the exclusivity clause in FISA, meant to carve out a legitimate role for itself in this arena.
The administration holds that an exception to the normal warrant requirements exists when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent attack from a foreign threat. Such an exception has been upheld at the Circuit Court level when the target was a foreign agent residing abroad,^[67]^[68] a foreign agent residing in the US,^[69]^[70]^[71]^[72] and a US citizen abroad.^[73] The warrantless exception was struck down when both the target and the threat was deemed domestic.^[74] The legality of targeting US persons acting as agents of a foreign power and residing in this country has not been addressed by the US Supreme Court, but has occurred at least once, in the case of Aldrich Ames.^[75]

Administration's statutory position

The Administration's position with regard to statutory interpretation, as outlined in the DOJ whitepaper, is to avoid what it has termed the "difficult Constitutional questions" by

interpreting the FISA "except as authorized by statute" clause to mean that Congress allowed for future legislative statute(s) to provide exceptions to the FISA warrant requirements,^[76]
that the AUMF was such a statute, and
as such, implicitly provided executive authority to authorize warrantless interception of enemy communication.

This argument, as outlined in the DOJ whitepaper, is based on the language of the AUMF, specifically, the acknowledgment of the President's Constitutional authority contained in the preamble; "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States", and the language in the resolution itself;

[Be it resolved] [t]hat the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The administration also adds that the program is legal under Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act entitled Enhanced Surveillance Procedures,^{[citation needed]} although it is not relying upon the domestic law enforcement provisions of the PATRIOT Act for authorization of any of the NSA program activities.^{[citation needed]} The President had said prior to this, that Americans' civil liberties were being protected and that purely domestic wiretapping was being conducted pursuant to warrants under applicable law, including the Patriot Act.^[77]
These arguments must be compared to the language of the FISA itself, which states:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

—^[78]

Because the law only authorizes the President to bypass the FISA court during the first 15 days of a war declared by Congress (see "Declaration of war"), the administration's argument rests on the assumption that the AUMF gave the President more power than was understood as absolutely implicit in any Congressional "declaration of war" at the time of the statute's enactment. However, as a "declaration of war by the Congress" encompasses all military actions so declared, no matter how small, brief or otherwise constrained by Congress, the above citation could be seen as setting not a default or typical level of Presidential wartime authority, but instead a presumptive minimum, which might more often than not be extended (explicitly or implicitly) by Congress's war declaration.

Duty to notify Congress

According to Peter J. Wallison, former White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan: "It is true, of course, that a president's failure to report to Congress when he is required to do so by law is a serious matter, but in reality the reporting requirement was a technicality that a President could not be expected to know about."^[79] In regard to this program, a Gang of Eight (eight key members of Congress, thirteen in this case between the 107th and 109th Congressional Sessions) have been kept informed to some degree:

Speaker of the House: (Dennis Hastert (R-IL))
House Minority Leader: (Dick Gephardt (D-MO); Nancy Pelosi (D-CA))
Chair and Ranking Member of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: (Porter Goss (R-FL); Peter Hoekstra (R-MI); Jane Harman (D-CA))
Senate Majority Leader: (Trent Lott (R-MS); Bill Frist (R-TN))
Senate Minority Leader: (Tom Daschle (D-SD); Harry Reid (D-NV))
Chair and Vice Chair of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: (Pat Roberts (R-KS); Bob Graham (D-FL); Jay Rockefeller (D-WV))

Under the National Security Act of 1947, §501-503, codified as 50 USC §413-§413b,^[80] the President is required to keep Congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently" informed of U.S. intelligence activities, "consistent with ... protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters." For covert actions, from which intelligence gathering activities are specifically excluded in §413b(e)(1), the President is specifically permitted to limit reporting to the so-called Gang of Eight.^[81]
The administration contends that with regard to the NSA surveillance program, the administration fulfilled its notification obligations by briefing key members of Congress (thirteen individuals in this case between the 107th and 109th Congressional sessions) have been briefed on the NSA program more than a dozen times^{[citation needed]} but they were forbidden from sharing information about the program with other members or staff.^{[citation needed]}
On January 18, 2006 the Congressional Research Service released a report, "Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions".^[82]^[83] That report found that "[b]ased upon publicly reported descriptions of the program, the NSA surveillance program would appear to fall more closely under the definition of an intelligence collection program, rather than qualify as a covert action program as defined by statute", and, therefore, concluded there was no specific statutory basis for limiting briefings on the terrorist surveillance program to the Gang of Eight.^[84] However, the report goes on to note in its concluding paragraph that limited disclosure is also permitted under the statute "in order to protect intelligence sources and methods".^[85]
Thus, although the specific statutory "Gang of Eight" notification procedure for covert action would not seem to apply to the NSA program, it is not clear if a limited notification procedure intended to protect sources and methods is expressly prohibited. Additionally, should the sources and methods exception apply it will require a factual determination as to whether it should apply to disclosure of the program itself or only to specific sensitive aspects.

Constitutional law issues

The constitutional debate surrounding executive authorization of warrantless surveillance is principally about separation of powers ("checks and balances"). If, as discussed above, no "fair reading" of FISA can be found in satisfaction of the canon of avoidance, these issues will have to be decided at the appellate level, by United States courts of appeals. It should be noted that in such a separation of powers dispute, the burden of proof is placed upon the Congress to establish its supremacy in the matter: the Executive branch enjoys the presumption of authority until an Appellate Court rules against it.^{[citation needed]}

Article I and II

Article I vests Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The U.S. Supreme Court has used the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I to affirm broad Congressional authority to legislate as it sees fit in the domestic arena^{[citation needed]} but has limited its application in the arena of foreign affairs. In the landmark Curtiss-Wright decision, Justice Sutherland writes in his opinion of the Court:

The ["powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs"] are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.

Article II vests the President with power as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and requires that he "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
The U.S. Supreme Court has historically used Article II to justify wide deference to the President in the arena of foreign affairs.^{[citation needed]} Two historical and recent Supreme Court cases define the secret wiretapping by the NSA. Quoting again from the Curtiss-Wright decision:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

The extent of the President's power as Commander-in-Chief has never been fully defined, but two U.S. Supreme Court cases are considered seminal in this area:^[86]^[87] Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer and Curtiss-Wright.
In addition, two relatively new cases, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, have clarified, and in the case of Hamdan limited, the scope of executive power to detain and try suspected terrorists as enemy combatants.
In Hamdan, the Court's opinion in footnote 23, rejected the notion that Congress is impotent to regulate the exercise of executive war powers:

Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The Government does not argue otherwise.

Whether "proper exercise" of Congressional war powers includes authority to regulate the gathering of foreign intelligence, which in other rulings^{[citation needed]} has been recognized as "fundamentally incident to the waging of war", is a historical point of contention between the Executive and Legislative branches.^[8]^[88]
As noted in "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information", published by The Congressional Research Service:

A review of the history of intelligence collection and its regulation by Congress suggests that the two political branches have never quite achieved a meeting of the minds regarding their respective powers. Presidents have long contended that the ability to conduct surveillance for intelligence purposes is a purely executive function, and have tended to make broad assertions of authority while resisting efforts on the part of Congress or the courts to impose restrictions. Congress has asserted itself with respect to domestic surveillance, but has largely left matters involving overseas surveillance to executive self-regulation, subject to congressional oversight and willingness to provide funds.

The same report makes clear the Congressional view that intelligence gathered within the U.S. and where "one party is a U.S. person" qualifies as domestic in nature and as such completely within their purview to regulate, and further that Congress may "tailor the President’s use of an inherent constitutional power":

The passage of FISA and the inclusion of such exclusivity language reflects Congress’s view of its authority to cabin the President’s use of any inherent constitutional authority with respect to warrantless electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence. The Senate Judiciary Committee articulated its view with respect to congressional power to tailor the President’s use of an inherent constitutional power:

The basis for this legislation [FISA] is the understanding — concurred in by the Attorney General — that even if the President has an “inherent” constitutional power to authorize warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, Congress has the power to regulate the exercise of this authority by legislating a reasonable warrant procedure governing foreign intelligence surveillance

Fourth Amendment issues

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and helps guard against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by agents of the government. It is solely a right of the people that neither the Executive nor Legislative branch can lawfully abrogate, not even if acting in concert: no statute can make an unreasonable search reasonable, nor a reasonable search unreasonable.
The term "unreasonable" is deliberately imprecise but connotes the sense that there is a rational basis for the search and that it is not an excessive imposition upon the individual given the motivation for and circumstances of the search, and is in accordance with customary societal norms. It is conceived that a judge will be sufficiently distanced from the authorities seeking a warrant that they can render an impartial decision unaffected by any prejudices or improper motivations they (or the legislators who enacted a law they are seeking to enforce) may harbor.
An individual who believes their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by an unreasonable search or seizure may file a civil suit for monetary compensation and seek a court-ordered end to a pattern or practice of such unlawful activities by government authorities. Such civil rights violations are sometimes punishable by state or federal law. Evidence obtained in an unlawful search or seizure is generally inadmissible in a criminal trial.
The law countenances searches without warrant as "reasonable" in numerous circumstances, among them (see below): the persons, property, and papers of individuals crossing the border of the United States and those of paroled felons; in prisons, public schools and government offices; and of international mail. Although these are undertaken as a result of statute or Executive order, they should not be seen as deriving their legitimacy from these, rather, the Fourth Amendment explicitly allows reasonable searches, and the government has instituted some of these as public policy.
The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations within the United States constitutes a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore the government must generally obtain a warrant before undertaking such domestic recordings.
The protection of "private conversations" has been held to apply only to conversations where the participants have not only manifested a desire but also a reasonable expectation that their conversation is indeed private and that no other party is listening in. In the absence of such a reasonable expectation, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and surveillance without warrant does not violate it. Privacy is clearly not a reasonable expectation in communications to persons in the many countries whose governments openly intercept electronic communications, and is of dubious reasonability in countries against which the United States is waging war.
The law also recognizes a distinction between domestic surveillance taking place within U.S. borders and foreign surveillance of non-U.S. persons either in the U.S. or abroad.^[89] In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the Constitution does not extend protection to non-U.S. persons located outside of the United States, so no warrant would be required to engage in even physical searches of non-U.S. citizens abroad.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of warrantless searches targeting foreign powers or their agents within the US. There have been, however, a number of Circuit Court rulings upholding the constitutionality of such warrantless searches.^[90] In USA v. Osama bin Laden, the Second Circuit noted that "no court, prior to FISA, that was faced with the choice, imposed a warrant requirement for foreign intelligence searches undertaken within the United States." Assistant Attorney General William Moschella in his written response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee explained that in the administration's view, this unanimity of pre-FISA Circuit Court decisions vindicates their argument that warrantless foreign-intelligence surveillance authority existed prior to FISA and since, as these ruling indicate, that authority derives from the Executive's inherent Article II powers, they may not be encroached by statute.^[91] In 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) met for the first time and issued an opinion (In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001) which seems to echo that view. They too noted all the Federal courts of appeal having looked at the issue had concluded that there was constitutional power for the president to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. Furthermore, based on these rulings it "took for granted such power exits" and ruled that under this presumption, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." Professor Orin Kerr argues in rebuttal that the part of In Re Sealed Case that dealt with FISA (rather than the Fourth Amendment) was nonbinding obiter dicta and that the argument does not restrict Congress's power to regulate the executive in general.^[92]
Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, Suzanne Spaulding, former general counsel for the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate, and former Counsel to the President John Dean, contend that FISA clearly makes the wiretapping illegal and subject to the criminal penalties of FISA,^[62] (in seeming disagreement with the FISA Court of Review finding above) and that the president's own admissions already constitute sufficient evidence of a violation of the Fourth Amendment, without requiring further factual evidence. Professor John C. Eastman, in his analysis, prepared at the behest of the House Judiciary Committee, comparing the CRS and DOJ reports, concluded instead that under the Constitution and ratified by both historical and Supreme Court precedent, "the President clearly has the authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in time of war and of the communications to and from those he reasonably believes are affiliated with our enemies. Moreover, it should go without saying that such activities are a fundamental incident of war."^[93]

Border search exception

Orin S. Kerr, associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School^[94] and a leading scholar in the subjects of computer crime law and internet surveillance,^[95] points to an analogy between the NSA intercepts and searches allowed by the Fourth Amendment under the border search exception.

The border search exception permits searches at the border of the United States "or its functional equivalent." (United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985)). The idea here is that the United States as a sovereign nation has a right to inspect stuff entering or exiting the country as a way of protecting its sovereign interests, and that the Fourth Amendment permits such searches. Courts have applied the border search exception in cases of PCs and computer hard drives; if you bring a computer into or out of the United States, the government can search your computer for contraband or other prohibited items at the airport or wherever you are entering or leaving the country. See, e.g., United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005) (Wilkinson, J.)...At the same time, I don't know of a rationale in the case law for treating data differently than physical storage devices. The case law on the border search exception is phrased in pretty broad language, so it seems at least plausible that a border search exception could apply to monitoring at an ISP or telephone provider as the "functional equivalent of the border," much like airports are the functional equivalent of the border in the case of international airline travel...the most persuasive case on point: United States v. Ramsey, [held] that the border search exception applies to all international postal mail, permitting all international postal mail to be searched.

Criminal prosecution under the NSA program

Evidence gathered without warrant may raise significant Fourth Amendment issues which could preclude its use in a criminal trial. As a general rule of law, evidence obtained improperly without lawful authority, may not be used in a criminal prosecution.^{[citation needed]} The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the constitutionality of warrantless searches (which has been broadly defined by the court to include surveillance) targeting foreign powers or their agents, the admissibility of such evidence in a criminal trial nor whether it is permissible to obtain or use evidence gathered without warrant against US persons acting as agents of a foreign power.^{[citation needed]}

Presidential findings

The National Security Act of 1947^[96] requires Presidential findings for covert acts. SEC. 503. [50 U.S.C. 413b] (a) (5) of that act states: "A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States."

District Court findings

On August 17, 2006, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance "in contravention of [FISA or Title III]".^[36] In her ruling,^[97] she wrote:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.

Even some legal experts who agreed with the outcome have criticized the reasoning set forth in the opinion.^[98] Others have argued that the perceived flaws in the opinion in fact reflect the Department of Justice's refusal to argue the legal merits of the program (they chose to focus solely on arguments about standing and state secrets grounds).^[99]
On October 4, 2006, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously ruled that the government can continue the program while it appeals the lower court decision.^[100]^[101]
On July 6, 2007 the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs had no standing.
The Court found that:^[102]

[T]he plaintiffs do not — and because of the State Secrets Doctrine cannot — produce any evidence that any of their own communications have ever been intercepted by the NSA, under the TSP, or without warrants. Instead, they assert a mere belief, which they contend is reasonable and which they label a “well founded belief,”...

Implicit in each of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries is the underlying possibility — which the plaintiffs label a "well founded belief" and seek to treat as a probability or even a certainty — that the NSA is presently intercepting, or will eventually intercept, communications to or from one or more of these particular plaintiffs, and that such interception would be detrimental to the plaintiffs' clients, sources, or overseas contacts. This is the premise upon which the plaintiffs' entire theory is built. But even though the plaintiffs' beliefs — based on their superior knowledge of their contacts' activities — may be reasonable, the alternative possibility remains that the NSA might not be intercepting, and might never actually intercept, any communication by any of the plaintiffs named in this lawsuit.

Corporate confidentiality analysis

Corporate secrecy is also an issue. Wired reported: In a letter to the EFF, AT&T objected to the filing of the documents in any manner, saying that they contain sensitive trade secrets and could be "used to 'hack' into the AT&T network, compromising its integrity."^[103] However, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker stated, during the September 12, 2008 hearing in the class-action lawsuit filed by the EFF, that the Klein evidence could be presented in court, effectively ruling that AT&T's trade secret and security claims were unfounded.

Third-party legal analytical arguments

Arguing that the program is legal or probably legal based upon War Powers Resolution

The majority of legal arguments supporting the NSA warrantless surveillance program have been based on the War Powers Resolution. There have not been any other noteworthy types of supporting legal arguments. The War Powers Resolution has been questioned as unconstitutional since its creation, and its adaptation to the NSA warrantless surveillance program has been questionable.

John C. Eastman, Chapman Law professor and Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner on January 27, 2006, that the Congressional Research Service's assessment was institutionally biased against the President, ignored key constitutional text and Supreme Court precedent, and that the case made by the Department of Justice in support of the President's authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in time of war was compelling.^[93]
Robert Turner, Associate Director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, testified before Congress on March 31, 2006, that "I believe the President has this authority by virtue of his “executive Power” vested in him by Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. And if he needed any additional authority, the AUMF statute—enacted with but a single dissenting vote in the entire Congress—clearly empowers him to exercise the intelligence-gathering component of his Commander in Chief power as well."^[104]
Michael Stokes Paulsen, Professor at the University of St. Thomas, in a debate with Professors Heidi Kitrosser and Dale Carpenter of University of Minnesota Law School entitled Presidential Powers in Time of War^[105]

The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks.
Letter from Senator Pat Roberts to Senator Arlen Specter Senator defending NSA program legality, February 3, 2006^[106]

War Powers Resolution used against US citizens in an undeclared war and without Authorization for Use of Military Force is unconstitutional

Some people assert that the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional as pertaining to its implications on US citizens. Their arguments are based on the assertion that government has unlimited powers to protect against enemies during wartime. There have been no Declarations of war by the US that could include a direct declaration of war against US citizens. Under the War Powers Resolution the only option otherwise was to enact an authorization of the use of military force (which has been seen as unconstitutional since its creation. Under the War Powers Resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) was enacted. The AUMF has been used as a basis for justifying the Patriot Act and related laws. The AUMF strictly states in Section 2: (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. This declaration of war only goes so far though. Since it clearly identifies the enemy "nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" & it states a war-time goal of "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Therefore these "nations, organizations or persons" would have had to have been identified as having "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the (9/11) terrorist attacks... or harbored such organizations or persons." Since the language in the declaration of war clearly states that the declared enemy had to have been involved with a specific aspect of causing (planned, authorized, committed, aided, or harbored) 9/11, the enforcement of such policies is legally limited to those parties as well. The application of wartime powers worldwide (and within USA) assumed under these pretenses can be seen as an implicit interpretation of the law, although it explicitly states that the enemies must have been involved with 9/11.
Since no US citizens have been identified as being involved in the 9/11 attacks, and since AUMF strictly states that war-time enemies are those who were involved in 9/11, extending these war-time powers to US citizens can be seen as unconstitutional or an undeclared war.
While the Patriot Act does not explicitly state that its powers are based on the AUMF, the opinions that its resulting actions are constitutional are. Without a wartime declaration or Authorization for Use of Military Force against a particular group, the US government would not have the ability to adopt limitless constitution-breaking powers, as such is strictly forbidden in the constitution. The Tenth Amendment explicitly states that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people." The Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.^[107] Hence since the war-time powers have not been legally enacted against US citizens the enumeration of certain powers does not override the enumeration of certain rights. Without the backing of a declaration of war stating the US citizens as an enemy, the powers that have been enacted against US citizens under the Patriot Act are unconstitutional (as they violate 1st, 4th and other amendments).

Arguing that the program is illegal or probably illegal

The arguments against the legality of the NSA fall into two broad categories: those who argue that FISA raises no Constitutional issues and therefore the NSA program is illegal on its face,^[62] and those who argue that FISA (perhaps purposefully) raises a Constitutional conflict which should be resolved in Congress' favor.^[63]

On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) denounced the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. The ABA also formulated a policy opposing any future government use of electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes without obtaining warrants from a special secret court as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.^[108]
According to a report in The Boston Globe on February 2, 2006 three law professors, David D. Cole (Georgetown University), Richard Epstein (University of Chicago), and Philip Heymann (Harvard), said that what Bush is doing is unprecedented. Bush's claim that other presidents asserted that wartime powers supersede an act of Congress, "is either intentionally misleading or downright false," Cole said. He said Bush is misstating the In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001 ruling which supported Congressional regulation of surveillance. Epstein believes the United States Supreme Court would reject the Administration's argument and said, "I find every bit of this legal argument disingenuous...The president's position is essentially that (Congress) is not doing the right thing, so I'm going to act on my own." Professor Heymann, a former deputy US attorney general said, "The bottom line is, I know of no electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed that was not done under the . . . statute."^[109]
Cole, Epstein, Heynmann and eleven other prominent legal scholars (Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen Sullivan, Laurence Tribe, Martin Lederman, Ronald Dworkin, Walter Dellinger, William S. Sessions and William Van Alstyne) wrote a letter to Congress that appeared in the New York Review of Books on February 9, 2006.^[110] They wrote that "the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law." They summarized:

In conclusion, the DOJ letter fails to offer a plausible legal defense of the NSA domestic spying program. If the administration felt that FISA was insufficient, the proper course was to seek legislative amendment, as it did with other aspects of FISA in the Patriot Act, and as Congress expressly contemplated when it enacted the wartime wiretap provision in FISA. One of the crucial features of a constitutional democracy is that it is always open to the President—or anyone else—to seek to change the law. But it is also beyond dispute that, in such a democracy, the President cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable.
Professor Peter Swire, the C. William O’Neill Professor of Law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and Visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote a detailed "Legal FAQs on NSA Wiretaps" concluding that "[b]ased on the facts available to date, the wiretap program appears to be clearly illegal."^[111] Prof. Swire has previously written a very detailed history and analysis of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, published in Volume 72 of the George Washington Law Review, at 1306 (2004) and previously chaired a White House Working Group, including the intelligence agencies, on how to update electronic surveillance law for the Internet Age.
Robert Reinstein, dean of the law school at Temple University, has asserted that the warrantless domestic spying program is

a pretty straightforward case where the president is acting illegally... When Congress speaks on questions that are domestic in nature, I really can't think of a situation where the president has successfully asserted a constitutional power to supersede that... This is domestic surveillance over American citizens for whom there is no evidence or proof that they are involved in any illegal activity, and it is in contravention of a statute of Congress specifically designed to prevent this.
- Mr. Reinstein asserted that the broad consensus among legal scholars and national security experts is similar to his own analysis, and he predicted that the courts will rule that the program is unconstitutional.^[112]
Edward Lazarus, author, law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and federal prosecutor, has argued in articles such as "Warrantless Wiretapping: Why It Seriously Imperils the Separation of Powers, And Continues the Executive's Sapping of Power From Congress and the Courts", that "Unilateral executive power is tyranny, plain and simple".^[113]
Orin S. Kerr, a professor at The George Washington University Law School, prominent blogger and scholar of the legal framework of electronic surveillance has opined that the issues are complex, but that after his first analysis he concluded that the wiretapping probably does not infringe on Fourth Amendment constitutional rights, though it probably does violate FISA. President Bush has maintained he acted within "legal authority derived from the constitution" and that Congress "granted [him] additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda".^[114] However, while the President may argue that the necessary statutory authority to override FISA's warrant provisions is provided by the authorization to use "all necessary force" in the employment of military resources to protect the security of the United States, and that the use of wiretapping is a qualifying use of force (under the terms of the authorization for the use of military force against al-Qaida as found in Senate Joint Resolution 23, 2001), Kerr believes that this justification is ultimately unpersuasive, as is the argument that the President's power as the Commander-in-Chief (as derived from Article Two of the United States Constitution) provides him with the necessary constitutional authority to circumvent FISA during a time of war.^[115] Kerr cautiously estimates that about eight of the nine Supreme Court justices would agree with him that Article Two cannot trump statutes like FISA.^[116]
Robert M. Bloom, Professor of Law at Boston College, says this in a paper entitled "The Constitutional Infirmity of Warrantless NSA Surveillance: The Abuse of Presidential Power and the Injury to the Fourth Amendment," published on February 19, 2007, which he co-authored with William J. Dunn, a former Defense Department intelligence analyst, also of BC Law School:^[117]

President Bush argues that the surveillance program passes constitutional inquiry based upon his constitutionally delegated war and foreign policy powers, as well as from the congressional joint resolution passed following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. These arguments fail to supersede the explicit and exhaustive statutory framework provided by Congress and amended repeatedly since 2001 for judicial approval and authorization of electronic surveillance. The specific regulation by Congress based upon war powers shared concurrently with the President provides a constitutional requirement that cannot be bypassed or ignored by the President. The President’s choice to do so violates the Constitution and risks the definite sacrifice of individual rights for the speculative gain from warrantless action.
Glenn Greenwald, constitutional lawyer, author and prominent blogger (Greenwald's legal blog)^[118] arguing that the NSA program is illegal summarized:^[119]

Ultimately, though, the entire legal debate in the NSA scandal comes down to these few, very clear and straightforward facts: Congress passed a law in 1978 making it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight. Nobody of any significance ever claimed that that law was unconstitutional. The Administration not only never claimed it was unconstitutional, but Bush expressly asked for changes to the law in the aftermath of 9/11, thereafter praised the law, and misled Congress and the American people into believing that they were complying with the law. In reality, the Administration was secretly breaking the law, and then pleaded with The New York Times not to reveal this. Once caught, the Administration claimed it has the right to break the law and will continue to do so.
- After the Supreme Court's judgment in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Greenwald wrote: "The administration’s theories to justify the President’s lawbreaking have always been frivolous. But for those pretending not to recognize that fact, the Supreme Court has so ruled."^[120]
Jordan Paust, Mike and Teresa Baker College Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center, rejected the administration's legal arguments for the NSA program writing:^[121]

George W. Bush and US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claim that domestic spying in manifest violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was authorized by Congress in broad language in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) regarding persons responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Similar claims have been made in a December 22 letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The claims are patently false... ... Moreover, any so-called inherent presidential authority to spy on Americans at home (perhaps of the kind denounced in Youngstown (1952) and which no strict constructionist should pretend to recognize), has been clearly limited in the FISA in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) and 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(1), as supplemented by the criminal provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1).
William C. Banks, Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University argued that the NSA program is unconstitutional, writing that "in the unlikely event that legal authority for the NSA program can be found, this domestic spying violates the Fourth Amendment."^[122]
John Dean, Author and former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon testified before Congress on March 31, 2006, on the issue of censuring George Bush for authorizing the NSA wiretap program, saying "I hope... you will not place the president above the law by inaction. As I was gathering my thoughts yesterday to respond to the hasty invitation, it occurred to me that had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented. Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it."^[123]

Technical and operational details

Basic diagram of how the alleged wiretapping was accomplished. From EFF court filings^[124]

Higher detail diagram of how alleged wiretapping worked. From EFF court filings^[125]

Because of its highly classified status, little is publicly known about the actual implementation of the NSA domestic electronic surveillance program. Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit including limited technical details known to him personally in support of a class-action lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in federal district court in San Francisco in January 2006 on behalf of AT&T customers who alleged that they had been damaged by the telecommunications corporation's cooperation with the NSA. The lawsuit is called Hepting v. AT&T.^[126]^[127]
A January 16, 2004 statement by Mr. Klein includes additional technical details regarding the secret 2003 construction of an NSA-operated monitoring facility in Room 641A of 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, the site of a large SBC phone building, three floors of which are occupied by AT&T. ^[128]^[129]
According to Klein's affidavit, the NSA-equipped room uses equipment built by Narus Corporation to intercept and analyze communications traffic, as well as perform data-mining functions.^[130]
In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry analyzed potential security risks posed by the NSA program, based on information contained in Klein's affidavits as well as those of expert witness J. Scott Marcus, a designer of large-scale IP-based data networks, former CTO at GTE Internetworking and at Genuity, and former senior advisor for Internet Technology at the US Federal Communications Commission.^[131] They concluded that the likely architecture of the system created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by government agents.^[132]
Journalist Barton Gellman reported in the Washington Post that David Addington - who was at that time legal counsel to former Vice President Dick Cheney - was the author of the controlling legal and technical documents for the NSA surveillance program, typing the documents on a Tempest-shielded computer across from his desk in room 268 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and storing them in a vault in his office.^[133]

Related issues

Warrantless wiretaps and the history of FISA

Main article: Warrantless searches in the United States

The administration has compared the NSA warrantless surveillance program with historical wartime warrantless searches in the United States, going back to George Washington.^[51]
Critics have pointed out that Washington's surveillance occurred before the existence of the U.S. Constitution, and the other historical precedents cited by the administration were before the passage of FISA, and therefore did not directly contravene federal law.^[63] Abuses of electronic surveillance by the federal government such as Project SHAMROCK led to reform legislation in the 1970s.^[134] Advancing technology began to present questions not directly addressed by the legislation as early as 1985.^[135]
Executive orders by previous administrations including Clinton's and Carter's authorized the attorneys general to exercise authority with respect to both options under FISA.^[136]^[137] In Clinton's executive order, he authorized his attorney general "[pursuant] to section 302(a)(1)" to conduct physical searches without court order "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section".

Sufficiency of FISA in the war on terror

On December 19, 2005, U.S. Dept. of Justice Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, William Moschella, wrote a letter to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, defending the NSA program:

As explained above, the President determined that it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system. In addition, any legislative change, other than the AUMF, that the President might have sought specifically to create such an early warning system would have been public and would have tipped off our enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities. Nevertheless, I want to stress that the United States makes full use of FISA to address the terrorist threat, and FISA has proven to be a very important tool, especially in longer-term investigations. In addition, the United States is constantly assessing all available legal options, taking full advantage of any developments in the law.

U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah, also of the FISC, stated that he was unclear on why the FISC's emergency authority would not meet the administration's stated "need to move quickly." He and fellow judges on the court attended a briefing in January, called by presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.^[138]^[139] Reportedly, the court was also concerned about "whether the administration had misled their court about its sources of information on possible terrorism suspects . . . [as this] could taint the integrity of the court's work."^[140]
In part to address this problem, several commentators have raised the issue of whether, regardless how one feels about the authorization issue, FISA needs to be amended to address specific foreign intelligence needs, current technology developments, and advanced technical methods of intelligence gathering, in particular to provide for programmatic approvals of general or automated surveillance of foreign terrorist communications, the results of which could then legally be used as predicate for FISA warrants. In a recent essay, Judge Richard A. Posner opined that FISA "retains value as a framework for monitoring the communications of known terrorists, but it is hopeless as a framework for detecting terrorists. [FISA] requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist, when the desperate need is to find out who is a terrorist."^[141] For other examples, see Fixing Surveillance;^[142] Why We Listen,^[143] The Eavesdropping Debate We Should be Having;^[144] A New Surveillance Act;^[145] and A historical solution to the Bush spying issue^[146] (the latter setting out a historical perspective on the need for programmatic approval in foreign intelligence surveillance generally). And see Whispering Wires and Warrantless Wiretaps^[147] (discussing how FISA is inadequate to address certain technology developments).
During the investigational phase of the 9/11 Commission, a letter written by Special Agent Coleen Rowley, in her capacity as legal council to the FBI's Minneapolis Field Office, to FBI Director Robert Mueller came to the attention of the committee.^[148] In that letter and in subsequent testimony before the commission and the Senate Judiciary Committee, SA Rowley recounted among other things, the manner in which FISA procedural hurdles had hampered the FBI's investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called "20th hijacker") prior to the 9/11 attacks. Among the factors she cited were the complexity of the application and the detailed information required and confusion by field operatives about the standard of probable cause required by the FISC and the strength of the required link to a foreign power. At his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, 2002, Director Mueller in response to questions about the Rowley allegations testified that unlike normal criminal procedures, FISA warrant applications are "complex and detailed", requiring the intervention of FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) personnel trained in a specialized procedure (the "Woods" procedure) to ensure accuracy.^[149]

FISA exclusivity controversy

On January 19, 2006 the Department of Justice published a memorandum that stated in part:

For the foregoing reasons, the President—in light of the broad authority to use military force in response to the attacks of September 11 and to prevent further catastrophic attack expressly conferred on the President by the Constitution and confirmed and supplemented by Congress in the AUMF—has legal authority to authorize the NSA to conduct the signals intelligence activities he has described. Those activities are authorized by the Constitution and by statute, and they violate neither FISA nor the Fourth Amendment.

The following day, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee along with lone co-sponsor Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. Res. 350, a resolution "expressing the sense of the Senate that Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens."^[54]^[55] This non-binding resolution died in the Senate without being brought up for debate or being voted upon, so cannot be considered the "sense of the Senate."^[56]
On February 2, 2006 the same 14 constitutional scholars and former government officials responded:

In sum, we remain as unpersuaded by the DOJ's 42-page attempt to find authority for the NSA spying program as we were of its initial five-page version. The DOJ's more extended discussion only reaffirms our initial conclusion, because it makes clear that to find this program statutorily authorized would requires rewriting not only clear specific federal legislation, but major aspects of constitutional doctrine. Accordingly, we continue to believe that the administration has failed to offer any plausible legal justification for the NSA program.

On June 29, 2006, in a detainee case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected an analogous AUMF argument. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens, while ruling that "the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, and that those powers include the authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances" (citations omitted), held there was nothing in the AUMF language "even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in Article 21 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The distinction drawn by J. Stevens in Hamdan between that case and Hamdi, where the AUMF language was found to override the explicit language regarding detention in 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) is that the instant case would require a "Repeal by implication" of the UCMJ. How this distinction would be drawn in future cases involving the NSA program is unclear.

Separation of powers and Unitary Executive theory

Further information: Unitary Executive theory, Commander-in-Chief, and Separation of powers

The administration argues that the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance within U.S. borders was granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption, as is advocated by the Unitary Executive theory using the interpretation of John Yoo et al.. He argues that the President had the "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."^[150]^[151]
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the President's authority as commander-in-chief extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts...without specific congressional authorization" and without court review of the "level of force selected."^[152] Whether such declarations applying to foreign intelligence are in compliance with FISA has been examined by few courts since the passage of the act in 1978.
It is also uncertain whether the allegation that surveillance involves foreign parties suffices to extend law governing the president's military and foreign affairs powers to cover domestic activities. The Supreme Court voiced this concern in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."
The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of the Library of Congress, released a detailed report on NSA electronic surveillance, "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information," on January 5, 2006, which concluded:

From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion, and it would likewise appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall within the definition of “electronic surveillance” within the meaning of FISA or any activity regulated under Title III, Congress intended to cover the entire field with these statutes. To the extent that the NSA activity is not permitted by some reading of Title III or FISA, it may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb, in which case exclusive presidential control is sustainable only by “disabling Congress from acting upon the subject.” While courts have generally accepted that the President has the power to conduct domestic electronic surveillance within the United States inside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance, and has not ruled on the extent to which Congress can act with respect to electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information.

—^[88]^[153]^[154]

Classified information

Leaking of classified information

There is no single law that criminalizes the leaking of all classified information. There are certain statutes that prohibit certain types of classified information being leaked under certain circumstances. One such law is 18 U.S.C. § 798; it was tacked on to the Espionage Act of 1917 during the Second Red Scare in 1950. It is the 'SIGINT' statute, meaning signals intelligence. This statute says that

... whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, [including by publication,] classified information [relating to] the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government, [shall be fined or imprisoned for up to ten years.]

This statute is not limited in application to only federal government employees. However, the Code of Federal Regulations suggests the statute may apply primarily to the "[c]ommunication of classified information by Government officer or employee". 50 USCS §783 (2005).
There is a statutory procedure^[155] for a "whistleblower" in the intelligence community to report concerns with the propriety of a secret program, The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-272, Title VII, 112 Stat. 2413 (1998). Essentially the Act provides for disclosure to the agency Inspector General, and if the result of that is unsatisfactory, appeal to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. A former official of the NSA, Russ Tice, has asked to testify under the terms of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, in order to provide information to these committees about "highly classified Special Access Programs, or SAPs, that were improperly carried out by both the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency."^[156]
Executive Order 13292, which sets up the U.S. security classification system, provides (Sec 1.7) that "[i]n no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law".
Given doubts about the legality of the overall program, the classification of its existence may not have been valid under E.O. 13292.

VERY Publication of classified information

It is unlikely that the New York Times could be held liable for publishing its article under established Supreme Court precedent. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514,^[157] the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment precluded liability for a media defendant for publication of illegally obtained communications that the media defendant itself did nothing illegal to obtain if the topic involves a public controversy. The high court in Bartnicki accepted due to the suit's procedural position, that interception of information which was ultimately broadcast by the defendant radio station was initially illegal (in violation of ECPA), but nonetheless gave the radio station a pass because it did nothing itself illegal to obtain the information.
Nor could the government have prevented the publication of the classified information by obtaining an injunction. In the Pentagon Papers case, (New York Times Co. v. U.S. (403 US 713)),^[158] the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that injunctions against the New York Times publication of classified information (United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by The Department of Defense, a 47 volume, 7,000-page, top-secret United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in the Vietnam War from 1945 to 1971) were unconstitutional prior restraints and that the government had not met the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint.
The 1917 Espionage Act, aside from the SIGINT statute discussed above, only criminalizes 'national defense' information, not 'classified' information. Although the Justice Department as a matter of law sees no exemption for the press, as a matter of fact it has refrained from prosecuting:

A prosecution under the espionage laws of an actual member of the press for publishing classified information leaked to it by a government source would raise legitimate and serious issues and would not be undertaken lightly, indeed, the fact that there has never been such a prosecution speaks for itself.

On the other hand, Sean McGahan of Northeastern University, told the Washington Post,

There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors.

—^[159]

Responses and analyses

Administration response to press stories

On December 17, 2005, President George W. Bush addressed the growing controversy in his weekly radio broadcast.^[160] He stated that he was using his authority as President, as Commander in Chief of the US military, and such authority as the United States Congress had given him, to intercept international communications of "people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations". He added that before intercepting any communications, "the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks." He speculated that had the right communications been intercepted, perhaps the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. He said the NSA program was re-authorized every 45 days, having at that time been reauthorized "more than 30 times"; it was reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA lawyers "including NSA's general counsel and inspector general", and Congress leaders had been briefed "more than a dozen times".^[161]
In a speech in Buffalo, New York on April 20, 2004, he had said that:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

—^[162]

And again, during a speech at Kansas State University on January 23, 2006, President Bush mentioned the program, and added that it was "what I would call a terrorist surveillance program", intended to "best... use information to protect the American people",^[163] and that:

What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why. This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic spying," these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States [...] I told you it's a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you.

During a speech^[164] in New York on January 19, 2006 Vice President Dick Cheney commented on the controversy, stating that a "vital requirement in the war on terror is that we use whatever means are appropriate to try to find out the intentions of the enemy," that complacency towards further attack was dangerous, and that the lack of another major attack since 2001 was due to "round the clock efforts" and "decisive policies", and "more than luck." He stated that:

[B]ecause you frequently hear this called a 'domestic surveillance program.' It is not. We are talking about international communications, one end of which we have reason to believe is related to al Qaeda or to terrorist networks affiliated with al Qaeda.. a wartime measure, limited in scope to surveillance associated with terrorists, and conducted in a way that safeguards the civil liberties of our people.

General Michael Hayden.

In a press conference on December 19 held by both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, the Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence, General Hayden claimed, "This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States." He stated that even an emergency authorization under FISA required marshaling arguments and "looping paperwork around". Hayden also implied that decisions on whom to intercept under the wiretapping program were being made on the spot by a shift supervisor and another person, but refused to discuss details of the specific requirements for speed.^[18]
Beginning in mid-January 2006 there was an increase in public discussion on the legality of the terrorist surveillance program by the Administration.^[165]
The United States Department of Justice sent a 42 page white paper to Congress on January 19, 2006 stating the grounds upon which it was felt the NSA program was entirely legal, which restates and elaborates on reasoning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales used at the December press conference when the legality of the program was questioned.^[166] Gonzales spoke further at Georgetown University January 24, claiming that Congress had given the President the authority to order the surveillance without going through the courts, and that normal procedures to order surveillance were too slow and cumbersome.^[167]
General Hayden stressed the NSA respect for the Fourth Amendment, stating at the National Press Club on January 23, 2006 that, "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such."^[168]
Some sources state that despite the NSA program, "[t]he agency ... still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications."^[169] An article from February 5, 2006 in the Washington Post reported that the program had netted few suspects.^[53]
In a speech on January 25, 2006, Bush said, "I have the authority, both from the Constitution and the Congress, to undertake this vital program,"^[170] telling the House Republican Caucus at their February 10 conference in Maryland that "I wake up every morning thinking about a future attack, and therefore, a lot of my thinking, and a lot of the decisions I make are based upon the attack that hurt us."^[171]
President Bush reacted to a May 10 domestic call records article in USA Today by restating his position, that it is "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."^[172]

Congressional response

Three days after news broke about the warrantless wiretapping program, a bipartisan group of Senators—Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Carl Levin of Michigan, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, sent a letter dated December 19, 2005 to Judiciary and Intelligence Committees chairmen and ranking members requesting the two committees to "seek to answer the factual and legal questions" about the program.
On January 20, 2006, in response to the administration's asserted legal justification of the NSA program being based in part on the AUMF, Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Kennedy (D-MA) introduced Resolution 350 to the Judiciary Committee that purported to express a "sense of the Senate" that the AUMF "does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens".^[54]^[55] Resolution 350 was never reported out of committee and has no effect.^[56]
In introducing their resolution to committee,^[173] they quoted Justice O'Connor's opinion that even war "is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."
Additionally, they asserted their opinion that the US DOJ legal justification for the NSA program was a "manipulation of the law" similar to other "overreaching" and "twisted interpretations" in recent times. Leahy and Kennedy also asserted that Attorney General Gonzales "admitted" at a press conference on December 19, 2005, that the Administration did not seek to amend FISA to authorize the NSA spying program because it was advised that "it was not something we could likely get." (However, as noted below under "Proposed Amendments to FISA", Gonzales has made clear that what he actually said was that such an amendment was "not something [they] could likely get" without disclosing the nature of the program and operational limitations and that it was believed that such disclosure would be damaging to national security.)
Leahy and Kennedy also asserted that in their view the procedures being followed in the NSA program, specifically, the ongoing 45 day reapproval by the Attorney General, the White House Counsel and the Inspector General of the National Security Agency, was "not good enough" because each of these is an executive branch appointees who in turn report directly to the Executive. Finally, they concluded that Congressional and Judicial oversight were fundamental and should not be unilaterally discarded. Resolution 350 has not been reported out of committee.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, in a three-page letter dated June 7, 2006 to Vice President Dick Cheney, to prompt the Administration to provide: input on his proposed legislation, briefings to his committee about the program, and more cooperation with Congressional oversight. Specter also wrote about the Vice President lobbying the other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee about compelling telephone companies to testify about classified information.
In February 2008, the Bush Administration backed a new version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would grant telecom companies retroactive immunity from lawsuits stemming from the alleged surveillance. On March 13, 2008 the U.S. House of Representatives held a secret session to discuss classified information relating to the new FISA. On March 14, the House passed a bill that would not grant the immunity sought by the Bush administration.

Legal developments

Congressionally proposed FISA amendments

The Administration has contended that amendment was unnecessary because they believe that the President had inherent authority to approve the NSA program, and that the process of amending FISA might require disclosure of classified information that could harm national security. In response, Senator Leahy said, "If you do not even attempt to persuade Congress to amend the law, you must abide by the law as written."^[174] President Bush claims that he can ignore the law because he claims that the Constitution gives him "inherent authority" to do so.^[175]^[176]
However, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stated that the Bush administration chose not to ask Congress for an amendment to FISA to authorize such wiretaps explicitly because it would have been difficult to get such an amendment without compromising classified information relating to operational details. "This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."^[18] Some politicians and commentators have used this statement -- “would be difficult, if not impossible”—to argue that the Administration declined to seek a specific amendment to FISA because the administration believed Congress would have rejected it. However, later in the same briefing Gonzales clarified his earlier remark to say that the administration had been advised that amendment was something they were not likely to get "without jeopardizing the existence of the program." At another briefing, two days later, Gonzales made this point again:^[177]

What I said, or what I surely intended to say, if I didn't say, is that we consulted with leaders in the congress about the feasibility of legislation to allow this type of surveillance. We were advised that it would be virtually impossible to obtain legislation of this type without compromising the program. And I want to emphasize the addition of, without compromising the program. That was the concern.

Finally, in his written Responses to Questions from Senator Specter in which Specter specifically asked why the administration had not sought to amend FISA to accommodate the NSA program,^[178] Gonzales wrote:

[W]e were advised by members of Congress that it would be difficult, if not impossible to pass such legislation without revealing the nature of the program and the nature of certain intelligence capabilities. That disclosure would likely have harmed our national security, and that was an unacceptable risk we were not prepared to take.

Nevertheless, competing legislative proposals to authorize the NSA program subject to Congressional or FISA court oversight have been proposed and have been the subject of Congressional hearings throughout the summer.^[179]
On March 16, 2006, Senators Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455),^[180]^[181] under which the President would be given certain additional limited statutory authority to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States subject to enhanced Congressional oversight. Also on March 16, 2006, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced The National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2453),^[182]^[183] which would amend FISA to grant retroactive amnesty^[184] for warrantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority and provide FISA court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and oversight "electronic surveillance programs." On May 24, 2006, Senator Specter and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S.3001) asserting FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.
On September 13, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve all three mutually exclusive bills, thus, leaving it to the full Senate to resolve.^[41]
On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) introduced the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825). Wilson's bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006 the House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill and it was referred to the Senate.^[40]
Each of these bills would in some form broaden the statutory authorization for electronic surveillance, while still subjecting it to some restrictions. The Specter-Feinstein bill would extend the peacetime period for obtaining retroactive warrants to seven days and implement other changes to facilitate eavesdropping while maintaining FISA court oversight. The DeWine bill, the Specter bill, and the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (already passed by the House) would all authorize some limited forms or periods of warrantless electronic surveillance subject to additional programmatic oversight by either the FISC (Specter bill) or Congress (DeWine and Wilson bills).

FISA court order

On January 18, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee "Court orders issued last week by a Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will enable the government to conduct electronic surveillance – very specifically, surveillance into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization – subject to the approval of the FISA Court. We believe that the court’s orders will allow the necessary speed and agility the government needs to protect our Nation from the terrorist threat."^[185] The ruling by the FISA Court was the result of a two-year effort between the White House and the court to find a way to obtain court approval that also would "allow the necessary speed and agility" to find terrorists, Gonzales said in a letter to the top committee members. The "innovative" court order on Jan. 10 will do that, Gonzales wrote. Senior Justice department officials would not say whether the orders provided individual warrants for each wiretap or whether the court had given blanket legal approval for the entire NSA program. The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that "without more information about what the secret FISA court has authorized, there is no way to determine whether the NSA's current activities are lawful."^[186] Chip Pitts of Stanford Law School argues that substantial legal questions remain regarding the core NSA program as well as the related data mining program (and the use of National Security Letters), despite the government's apparently bringing the NSA program within the purview of the FISA law.^[187]

FISCR Ruling of August 2008

In August 2008, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) affirmed the constitutionality of the Protect America Act of 2007 in a heavily redacted opinion released on January 15, 2009, which is only the second such public ruling since the enactment of the FISA Act.^[188]^[189]^[190]^[191]^[192]

Data Source Provided From : From Wikipedia

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Data Source Provided From : From Wikipedia

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Terrorist Surveillance Program

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was an electronic surveillance program implemented by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks. It was part of the President's Surveillance Program, which was in turn conducted under the overall umbrella of the War on Terrorism. The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a U.S. person. In 2005 The New York Times disclosed that technical glitches resulted in some of the intercepts including communications were "purely domestic" in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. ^[1] Later works, such as James Bamford's The Shadow Factory, describe how the nature of the domestic surveillance was much, much more widespread than initially disclosed. In a 2011 New Yorker article, former NSA employee Bill Binney said that his colleagues told him that the NSA had begun storing billing and phone records from "everyone in the country."^[2]
The program was named the Terrorist Surveillance Program by the George W. Bush administration^[3] in response to the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy following disclosure of the program. It is claimed that this program operated without the judicial oversight mandated by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and legal challenges to the program are currently undergoing judicial review. Because the technical specifics of the program have not been disclosed, it is unclear if the program is subject to FISA. It is unknown if this is the original name of the program; the term was first used publicly by President Bush in a speech on January 23, 2006.^[4]
On August 17, 2006, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the program unconstitutional and illegal. On appeal, the decision was overturned on procedural grounds and the lawsuit was dismissed without addressing the merits of the claims,^[5] although one further challenge is still pending in the courts. On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed U.S. Senate leaders by letter ^[6] that the program would not be reauthorized by the president, but would be subjected to judicial oversight. "Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," according to his letter.^[7]
On June 6, 2013, it was revealed that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was replaced by a new NSA program, referred to by its codeword, PRISM.^[8]

Description

While no specific information has been offered, the Bush Administration has indicated that the wiretapping program targets communications where at least one party is outside the United States, and where it asserts that there are reasonable grounds to believe that one or more parties involved in the communication have ties to al Qaeda. However, anonymous sources have come forward stating a small number of instances where purely domestic calls were intercepted. These sources said the NSA accidentally intercepted these calls, apparently caused by technical glitches in determining whether a communication was in fact "international," probably due to the use of international cell phones.^[1]
The complete details of the program are not known, as the Bush Administration contended that security concerns did not allow it to release details, and limit judicial authorization and review.^{[citation needed]} Implemented sometime after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the existence of the program was not made public until a 2005 New York Times article. Additional details came to light in a May 2006 USA Today article.^[9]
President Bush stated that he had reviewed and reauthorized the program approximately every 45 days since it was implemented. The leadership of the intelligence committees of the House or Representatives and Senate were briefed a number of times since initiation of the program.^[10] They were not, however, allowed to make notes or confer with others to determine the legal ramifications, or even to mention the existence of the program to the full membership of the intelligence committees. Further, the administration even refused to identify to the public which members of the committees were briefed; it has, however, provided a complete list of these members to the Senate Intelligence Committee.^[11]

Pen Register Tap

Prominent legal scholar and blogger Orin Kerr has argued that the program is probably not a wiretap or call database, but more likely to be a pen register (or tap and trace) tap.^[12] Unlike wiretaps, where the actual content of the call is monitored, or listened to, a pen register is a limited form of wiretap where only basic call data such as originating and receiving telephone numbers, time of call and duration are logged. Because of the limited nature of the data, frequently characterized as "outside the envelope," pen register taps have much lower legal standards than conventional wiretaps, and are not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.

Main article: Pen register

The only physical evidence of the NSA program are documents accidentally leaked to lawyers for an al-Qaeda front group the Al-Haramain Foundation. These documents contain only logs of phone calls being placed, but not actual transcripts, suggesting the wiretapping program is merely a pen-register tap.^[13]

Call database

Main article: NSA call database

On May 10, 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA has had a separate, previously undisclosed program in place since 9/11 to build a database of information about calls placed within the United States, including phone numbers, and the date and duration of the calls.^[9] According to the article, phone companies AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South disclosed the records to the NSA, while Qwest did not. The article quotes an unnamed source that "it's the largest database ever assembled in the world." Most reports indicate that this program is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The administration has not confirmed the existence of this aspect of the program.^[14]

News reporting

December 16, 2005

On December 16, 2005, The New York Times printed a story asserting that following 9/11, "President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying" as part of the War on Terror.^[15]

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

According to the Times:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to comment on the story on December 16, exclaiming "there’s a reason why we don’t get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening." ^[16] The next morning, the president gave a live eight-minute television address instead of his normal weekly radio address, during which he addressed the wiretap story directly:^[17]

I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

In the address, President Bush implied he had approved the tracing of domestic calls originating or terminating overseas, stating the program would "make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time." He forcefully defended his actions as "crucial to our national security" and claimed that the American people expected him to "do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties" as long as there was a "continuing threat" from al Qaeda. The president also had harsh words for those who broke the story, saying that they acted illegally. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," he said.^[18]
The FBI began an investigation into the leaks surrounding this program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case. ^[19]

January 1, 2006

On January 1, 2006, The New York Times printed a story revealing that aspects of the program were suspended for weeks in 2004. The Times story said the U.S. Attorney General's office, then headed by John Ashcroft, balked in 2004 when asked to give approval of the program, and that then Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey "played a part in overseeing the reforms that were put in place in 2004." According to the Times, however, the oversight by the NSA shift supervisor continued to be unfettered by any pre-approval requirement. The story also pointed out that even some NSA employees thought that the warrantless surveillance program was illegal.^[20]
The Times had withheld the article from publication for over a year. Both editor in chief Bill Keller and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. were summoned by the president and White House officials to persuade the paper not to publish the story. The Times ran the story shortly before it would have been scooped by publication of its own reporter's book. The Times ombudsman speculates that the reason the backstory isn't being revealed is to protect sources.^[21] Russ Tice claims he was a source for the story.^[22]

January 3, 2006

On January 3, the independent news program Democracy Now!, and later on January 10 ABC news ran a story that according to NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, the number of Americans affected by the range of NSA surveillance programs could be in the millions if the full extent of secret NSA programs is considered:^[23]

Tice says the technology exists to track and sort through every domestic and international phone call as they are switched through centers, such as one in New York, and to search for key words or phrases that a terrorist might use. "If you picked the word 'jihad' out of a conversation," Tice said, "the technology exists that you focus in on that conversation, and you pull it out of the system for processing." According to Tice, intelligence analysts use the information to develop graphs that resemble spiderwebs linking one suspect's phone number to hundreds or even thousands more. "That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said.

January 17, 2006

On January 17 the New York Times reported, "more than a dozen current and former law-enforcement and counterterrorism officials," some of whom knew of the domestic spying program, "said the torrent of tips [from NSA wiretapping] led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive."^[24]

February 5, 2006

On February 5, The Washington Post noted that "fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their (purely) domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause." Also in the article: "The minimum legal definition of probable cause, said a government official who has studied the program closely, is that evidence used to support eavesdropping ought to turn out to be 'right for one out of every two guys at least.' Those who devised the surveillance plan, the official said, 'knew they could never meet that standard—that's why they didn't go through'" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.^[25]
Also on February 5, USA Today ran a story reporting that according to seven telecommunications executives, the NSA had secured the cooperation of the main telecommunications companies in charge of international phone calls, including AT&T, MCI, and Sprint, in its efforts to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls.^[26]

May 22, 2006

In its issue dated May 22, 2006, Newsweek put the controversy on the cover of its magazine and ran several stories inside summarizing what is known and speculations about it.^[27]
On May 22, 2006, Wired Magazine released the text of AT&T documents, currently under court seal in the EFF case, that allegedly describe NSA wiretap arrangements.^[28]

Legality of the program

Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

The NSA's electronic surveillance operations are governed primarily by four legal sources: the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA); Executive Order 12333; and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18.^[29] The primary legal challenge to the program currently in US courts is the suit brought by the Al-Haramain Foundation.^[30] All other challenges to the program have been dismissed by U.S. courts.
Critics of the Bush administration have regularly compared the current NSA surveillance program to those of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War (i.e., Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church committee).^[31] However, these programs occurred prior to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was passed into law in response to widespread concern over these abuses of domestic surveillance activities. According to opponents of this program that is exactly what the current program is doing and why FISA was enacted.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the program in 2006 on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers. In the initial trial, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on August 17, 2006, ruled the program was unconstitutional and imposed an injunction against it.^[32] The Justice Department filed an appeal within hours of the ruling and requested a stay of the injunction pending appeal. While opposing the stay, the ACLU agreed to delay implementation of the injunction until September 7 to allow time for the judge to hear the appeal.^[33] On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case without addressing the merits of the claims, holding 2–1 that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit.^[5]

Controversy

Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

When classified details were leaked to the press at some point in 2005, critics began to question the legality of the program. The crux of the debate over legality is twofold, the main issues being

Are the parameters of this program subject to FISA and
If so, did the president have authority, inherent or otherwise, to bypass FISA.

FISA explicitly covers "electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information" performed within the United States, and there is no court decision supporting the theory that the president's constitutional authority allows him to override statutory law. This was emphasized by fourteen constitutional law scholars, including the dean of Yale Law School and the former deans of Stanford Law School and the University of Chicago Law School:

"The argument that conduct undertaken by the commander in chief that has some relevance to 'engaging the enemy' is immune from congressional regulation finds no support in, and is directly contradicted by, both case law and historical precedent. Every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the commander in chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute. No precedent holds that the president, when acting as commander in chief, is free to disregard an Act of Congress, much less a criminal statute enacted by Congress, that was designed specifically to restrain the president as such." (Emphasis in original.)^[34]

The American Bar Association, the Congressional Research Service, former congressional representative of New York Elizabeth Holtzman, former White House Counsel John Dean, and lawyer/author Jennifer van Bergen have also criticized the administration's justification for conducting electronic surveillance within the U.S. without first obtaining warrants as contrary to current U.S. law. ^[31] ^[35] ^[36] ^[37] ^[38] ^[39] President Bush's former Assistant Deputy Attorney General for national security issues, David Kris, and five former FISC judges, one of whom resigned in protest, have also voiced their doubts as to the legality of a program bypassing FISA ^[40] Stanford's Chip Pitts has usefully distinguished between the core NSA eavesdropping program, the data mining program, and the use of National Security Letters to clarify that each continues to present serious legal problems despite the government's supposedly bringing them within the relevant laws.^[41]

Data Source Provided From : From Wikipedia

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

PRISM (surveillance program)

Logo for the PRISM program

PRISM is an electronic surveillance program classified as top secret that has been run by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) since 2007.^[1]^[2] PRISM is a government codename for a collection effort known officially as US-984XN.^[3]^[4]^[5]
Documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden^[6] in June 2013 describe the PRISM program as enabling in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. It provides for the targeting of any customers of participating corporations who live outside the United States, or American citizens whose communications include web content of people outside the United States. Data which the NSA is able to obtain under PRISM allegedly includes email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice over IP conversations, file transfers, login notifications and social networking details.^[7]
According to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, PRISM cannot be used intentionally to target any Americans or anyone in the United States. Clapper said a secret court, Congress and the executive branch oversee the program and extensive procedures ensure the acquisition, retention and dissemination of data accidentally collected about Americans is kept to a minimum.^[8]
The Washington Post noted that the leaked document indicated that the PRISM SIGAD is "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports."^[9] The President's Daily Brief, an all-source intelligence product, cited PRISM data as a source in 1,477 items in 2012.^[10] The leaked information came to light one day after the revelation that the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been requiring the telecommunications company Verizon to turn over to the NSA logs tracking all of its customers' telephone calls on an ongoing daily basis.^[2]^[11]
NSA whistleblower William Binney has stated that PRISM is just another source of input of information. "The telecoms were giving NSA access to their communication lines. The Narus devices that the NSA put in different rooms around the AT&T fiber-optic network, or Verizon's network, couldn’t collect everything. They could get most of it, but they couldn’t get it all. So in order to get all the data, they had to go to the service providers to fill in the blanks. That’s what the PRISM program is for—to fill in the blanks. It also gives the FBI basis for introducing evidence into court."^[12]

History

Slide showing that much of the world's communications flow through the US

PRISM is a "Special Source Operation" in the tradition of NSA's intelligence alliances with as many as 100 trusted U.S. companies since the 1970s.^[13] PRISM was launched in December 2007 to replace the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The latter was implemented in the wake of the September 11 attacks under the George W. Bush Administration but was widely criticized and had its legality questioned, because it was conducted without approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17] PRISM was authorized by an order of the FISC.^[9] Its creation 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.^[7]^[18] 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.^[18]
PRISM was first publicly revealed on June 6, 2013, after classified documents about the program were leaked to the Washington Post and The Guardian by NSA insider Edward Snowden.^[7]^[1] The leaked documents included 41 PowerPoint slides, four of which were published in news articles.^[1]^[7] The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including (date of joining PRISM in parentheses) Microsoft (2007), Yahoo! (2008), Google (2009), Facebook (2009), Paltalk (2009), YouTube (2010), AOL (2011), Skype (2011), and Apple (2012).^[19] The speaker's notes in the briefing document reviewed by the Washington Post indicated that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft."^[1]

Details of information collected via PRISM

The slide presentation stated that much of the world's electronic communications pass through the United States, because electronic communications data tend to follow the least expensive route rather than the most physically direct route, and the bulk of the world's internet infrastructure is based in the United States.^[9] The presentation noted that these facts provide United States intelligence analysts with opportunities for intercepting the communications of foreign targets as their electronic data pass into or through the United States.^[7]^[9]
According to the Washington Post, the intelligence analysts search PRISM data using terms intended to identify suspicious communications of targets whom the analysts suspect with at least 51 percent confidence to not be United States citizens, but in the process, communication data of some United States citizens are also collected unintentionally.^[1] Training materials for analysts tell them that while they should periodically report such accidental collection of non-foreign United States data, "it's nothing to worry about."^[1]

Response from companies

The original Washington Post and Guardian articles reporting on PRISM noted that one of the leaked briefing documents said PRISM involves collection of data "directly from the servers" of several major internet services providers.^[7]^[1] Corporate executives of several companies identified in the leaked documents told The Guardian that they had no knowledge of the PRISM program in particular and also denied making information available to the government on the scale alleged by news reports.^[7]^[20] Statements of several of the companies named in the leaked documents were reported by TechCrunch as follows:^[21]

Slide listing companies and the date that they joined PRISM

Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law."^[21]
Google: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data."^[21]
Apple: "We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order."^[22]
Microsoft: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don't participate in it."^[21]
Yahoo!: "Yahoo! takes users' privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network."^[21]
Dropbox: "We've seen reports that Dropbox might be asked to participate in a government program called PRISM. We are not part of any such program and remain committed to protecting our users' privacy."^[21]

In response to the technology companies' denials of the NSA being able to directly access the companies' servers, The New York Times reported that sources had stated the NSA was gathering the surveillance data from the companies using other technical means in response to court orders for specific sets of data.^[2] The Washington Post suggested, "It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing 'collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,' rather than directly to company servers."^[1] "If these companies received an order under the FISA amendments act, they are forbidden by law from disclosing having received the order and disclosing any information about the order at all," Mark Rumold, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told ABC News.^[23]

Slide showing two different sources of NSA data collection. The first source the fiber optic cables of the internet handled by the Upstream program and the second source the servers of major internet companies handled by PRISM.^[24]

On May 28, 2013, Google was ordered by United States District Court Judge Susan Illston to comply with a National Security Letter issued by the FBI to provide user data without a warrant.^[25] Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an interview with VentureBeat said "I certainly appreciate that Google put out a transparency report, but it appears that the transparency didn’t include this. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were subject to a gag order."^[26]
The New York Times reported on June 7, 2013 that "Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations."^[27] The other companies held discussions with national security personnel on how to make available data more efficiently and securely.^[27] In some cases, these companies made modifications to their systems in support of the intelligence collection effort.^[27] The dialogues have continued in recent months, as Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has met with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel.^[27] These details on the discussions provide insight into the disparity between initial descriptions of the government program including a training slide which states "Collection directly from the servers"^[28] and the companies" initial denials.^[27]
While providing data in response to a legitimate FISA request approved by FISC is a legal requirement, modifying systems to make it easier for the government to collect the data is not. This is why Twitter could legally decline to provide enhanced access to its systems.^[27] Other than Twitter, the companies were effectively asked to construct a locked mailbox and provide the key to the government, people briefed on the negotiations said.^[27] Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information.^[27]

Response from United States government

Shortly after publication of the reports by the Guardian and the Washington Post, the United States Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released a statement confirming that for nearly 6 years the government of the United States had been using large internet services companies such as Google and Facebook to collect information on foreigners outside the United States as a defense against national security threats.^[2] The statement read in part, "The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies."^[29] He went on to say, "Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States."^[29] Clapper concluded his statement by stating "The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans."^[29] On March 12, 2013, Clapper had told the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the NSA does "not wittingly" collect any type of data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.^[30]
Clapper also stated that "the NSA collects the phone data in broad swaths, because collecting it (in) a narrow fashion would make it harder to identify terrorism-related communications. The information collected lets the government, over time, make connections about terrorist activities. The program doesn’t let the U.S. listen to people’s calls, but only includes information like call length and telephone numbers dialed."^[8]
On June 8, 2013, Clapper issued an additional statement and fact sheet about PRISM, emphasizing that "the surveillance activities published in The Guardian and The Washington Post are lawful and conducted under authorities widely known and discussed, and fully debated and authorized by Congress."^[31]^[32] The fact sheet described PRISM as "an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a)." It further stated that "the United States Government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers. All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based upon a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence." It said that the Attorney General provides FISA Court rulings and semi-annual reports about PRISM activities to Congress, "provid[ing] an unprecedented degree of accountability and transparency."^[32]
The President of the United States, Barack Obama, defended the government's surveillance programs, saying that they were legally authorized and had helped prevent terrorist attacks. "What you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress. Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. There are a whole range of safeguards involved. And federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout."^[33] He also said that having a debate about how to balance security issues with privacy concerns is healthy for democratic government, but he cautioned, "You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society."^[33] In separate statements, senior Obama administration officials said that Congress had been briefed 13 times on the programs since 2009.^[34]
In contrast to their swift and forceful reactions the previous day to allegations that the government had been conducting surveillance of United States citizens' telephone records, Congressional leaders had little to say about the PRISM program the day after leaked information about the program was published. Several lawmakers declined to discuss PRISM, citing its top-secret classification,^[35] and others said that they had not been aware of the program.^[36]
Investigative journalist Russ Baker has commented on the government statement in an interview on RT "Claims that the NSA is not spying on Americans are absurd because anybody could potentially commit a terrorist act. The reality is they're looking at all of us. They're trying to establish networks of communication but it's kind of ridiculous because you're looking for a needle in a haystack. You're looking at virtually the entire world trying to find just a handful of plots and, as we know, many of these plots turn out to be more complicated, with FBI informants involved right from the beginning."^[37]
On June 8, 2013 questioned regarding PRISM, highly placed NSA intelligence official , turned whistleblower William Binney confirmed and clarified U.S Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden 2011 allegation^[38] by stating "the government is using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain any data in any third party, like any service provider… any third party… any commercial company – like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical companies – holding data about anyone, any U.S. citizen or anyone else. In other words, the government was using the antiquated, bogus legal argument that it was not acting (under) color of law using governmental powers, and that it was private companies just doing their thing (which the government happened to order all of the private companies to collect and fork over)".^[39]

Authorized by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

On June 8, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence issued a fact sheet stating that PRISM was conducted "under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a)."^[32] Section 702 provides that “the Attorney General [A.G.] and the Director of National Intelligence [DNI] may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information."^[40] In order to authorize the targeting, the A.G. and DNI need to get an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) pursuant to Section 702 or certify that “intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order."^[40] When asking for an order, the A.G. and DNI must certify to FICS that “a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information.” ^[40] They do not need to specify which facilities or property that the targeting will be directed at. ^[40]
After getting a FISC order or determining that there are emergency circumstances, the A.G. and DNI can direct an electronic communication service provider to give them access to information or facilities to carry out the targeting and keep the targeting secret. ^[40] The provider then has the option to: (1) comply with the directive; (2) reject it; or (3) challenge it to FISC.
If the provider complies with the directive, it is released from liability to its users for providing the information and reimbursed for the cost of providing it.^[40]
If the provider rejects the directive, the A.G. may request an order from FISC to enforce it.^[40] A provider that fails to comply with FISC’s order can be punished with contempt of court. ^[40]
Finally, a provider can petition FISC to reject the directive. ^[40] In case FISC denies the petition and orders the provider to comply with the directive, the provider risks contempt of court if it refuses to comply with FISC’s order.^[40] The provider can appeal FISC’s denial to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and then appeal the Court of Review’s decision to the Supreme Court by a writ of certiorari for review under seal.^[40]

Involvement of other countries

In the United Kingdom, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has had access to the PRISM program on or before June 2010 and wrote 197 reports with it in 2012 alone. PRISM may have allowed GCHQ to circumvent the formal legal process required to seek personal material.^[41]^[42]
Germany did not receive any raw PRISM data, according to a Reuters report.^[43]
Israeli newspaper Calcalist was discussing the Business Insider article, about the possible involvement of technologies from two secretive Israeli companies in the PRISM program.^[44]^[45]

International responses

The German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Peter Schaar, condemned the program as "monstrous".^[46]
Sophie in 't Veld, a Dutch Member of the European Parliament, called PRISM "a violation of EU laws".^[47]

Related government internet surveillance programs

"A parallel program, code-named BLARNEY, gathers up metadata as it streams past choke points along the backbone of the Internet. BLARNEY’s summary, set down in the slides alongside a cartoon insignia of a shamrock and a leprechaun hat, describes it as “an ongoing collection program that leverages IC [intelligence community] and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks.”^[48]
A related program, a big data or data mining system based on cloud computing and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) technology known as "Boundless Informant", was disclosed in top secret documents leaked to the Guardian and reported on June 8, 2013.^[49]

Data Source Provided From : From Wikipedia

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Edward Snowden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward Joseph Snowden
Snowden as seen on the cover of The Guardian, 10 June 2013
Born	1983 (age 29–30) Elizabeth City, North Carolina, United States
Residence	Hawaii. Currently in Hong Kong.
Nationality	American
Occupation	System administrator
Employer	Booz Allen Hamilton
Known for	PRISM whistleblower

Edward Joseph Snowden (born 1983) is an American technical contractor, whistleblower and former United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who worked as a contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA).^[1]^[2] Snowden released classified material on top-secret NSA programs including the PRISM surveillance program to The Guardian and The Washington Post in June 2013.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

Early life and career

Snowden was brought up in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, later moving with his family to Ellicott City, Maryland where he studied computing at community college.^[6]^[7]
In 2003, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces. He was discharged after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. He then went to work as a security guard for a covert NSA facility at the University of Maryland. After that he went to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where he worked on IT security. In 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was responsible for maintaining computer network security. Leaving the CIA in 2009, he worked for a private contractor inside an NSA facility on a United States military base in Japan.^[6]
At the time of his departure from the US in May 2013, he had been working for defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton for less than three months, as a system administrator inside of the NSA in Hawaii.^[8]^[9] He described his life as "very comfortable", living with his girlfriend and earning a salary of "roughly US$200,000."^[6]
The Guardian describes Snowden as intensely passionate about the value of privacy; his laptop is adorned with stickers supporting internet freedom organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Tor Project.^[6] Although he says he "believed in Obama's promises", he "voted for a third party" in the 2008 election.^[10] Political donation records indicate that he contributed to the primary campaign of Ron Paul.^[11]

Whistleblowing

In May 2013, Snowden was granted temporary leave from his work as a contractor for the NSA in Hawaii, on the premise of receiving treatment for his epilepsy.^[6] On May 20, he flew to Hong Kong and began living in a hotel room, from which he leaked documents and provided an interview to The Guardian.^[6]
The Washington Post reported that the motive behind the leaks was to expose the United States ‘surveillance state’.^[1] Explaining his justification for the disclosure, Snowden remarked that he "can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."^[12]

“	I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things … I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.	”
—Edward Snowden, speaking to The Guardian in June 2013^[10]

Snowden's identity was made public by The Guardian and The Washington Post at his request, days after the leak. He explained his reasoning for forgoing anonymity: "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong".^[6]
He has said that he has a "predisposition to seek asylum in a country with shared values," and that his ideal choice would be Iceland.^[5]^[6] The International Modern Media Institute, an Icelandic freedom of speech advocacy organisation, on the day his identity was revealed issued a statement offering Snowden legal advice and assistance in gaining asylum.^[13]

Response

This article is about Edward Snowden personally. For response to the PRISM program itself, see PRISM (surveillance program).

The National Security Agency has requested a criminal probe into Snowden's actions from the United States Department of Justice. James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, said that his "reckless disclosures" have resulted in "significant misimpressions" in the media.^[14] Speaking before Snowden was named, chairman of the US Select Committee on Intelligence Mike Rogers said of the whistleblower: "I absolutely think they should be prosecuted".^[15]
Snowden's employer Booz Allen Hamilton released a statement condemning his actions as "shocking" and "a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm".^[8] The statement says he had been with the firm for under three months.
Amy Davidson, writing in The New Yorker, said Snowden "is the reason our country has, in the last week, been having a conversation on privacy and the limits of domestic surveillance. That was overdue, and one wishes it had been prompted by self-examination on the part of the Obama Administration or real oversight by Congress." She went on to say "We also learned that James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, flat-out lied to the Senate when he said that the N.S.A. did not 'wittingly' collect any sort of data on millions of Americans. And we were reminded of how disappointing President Obama can be. These were all things the public deserved to know."^[16]
Shortly after Snowden revealed his identity, a petition^[17] was posted on the White House website, asking for "a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes [Snowden] has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs."^[18]^[19]
Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower and leaker of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, stated in an interview with CNN that he thought Snowden had done an "incalculable" service to his country and that his leaks might prevent America from becoming a surveillance state. He said Snowden had acted with the same sort of courage and patriotism as a soldier in battle.^[20]

Data Source Provided From : From Wikipedia

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

अमरीका: ख़बर लीक करने वाले की पहचान ज़ाहिर

सोमवार, 10 जून, 2013 को 07:16 IST तक के समाचार

गार्डियन ने स्नोडेन के अनुरोध पर उनके नाम को सार्वजनिक किया है

अमरीका में निगरानी कार्यक्रम की जानकारी लीक करने वाले की पहचान ब्रिटेन के गार्डियन अखबार ने सीआईए के एक पूर्व तकनीकी कर्मचारी के रूप में ज़ाहिर की है.

अखबार के मुताबिक 29 वर्षीय एडवर्ड स्नोडेन सीआईए के पूर्व तकनीकी सहायक हैं और फिलहाल रक्षा विभाग के एक ठेकेदार बूज़ एलेन हैमिल्टन के कर्मचारी हैं.

टॉपिक

अमरीका

हाल में सामने आई जानकारियों के अनुसार अमरीकी एजेंसियों ने लाखों फ़ोन रिकॉर्ड जुटाए और इंटरनेट पर लोगों के बीच हो रही चर्चाओं की निगरानी की.
गार्डियन के अनुसार स्नोडेन की पहचान उन्हीं के अनुरोध पर सार्वजनिक की जा रही है.

"मैं उस समाज में नहीं रहना चाहता जहां ऐसा काम किया गया. मैं उस दुनिया में नहीं रहना चाहता जहां मेरे सारे काम और मेरी बातें रिकॉर्ड की जाती हों"

स्नोडेन, सीआई के पूर्व कर्मचारी

अखबार ने स्नोडेन के हवाले से लिखा है कि वो बीस मई को हॉन्ग कॉन्ग चले गए और खुद को एक होटल में बंद कर लिया.
स्नोडेन ने अखबार को बताया, “मैं उस समाज में नहीं रहना चाहता जहां ऐसा काम किया गया... मैं उस जगह नहीं रहना चाहता जहां मेरे सारे काम और मेरी बातें रिकॉर्ड की जाती हों.”
स्नोडेन ने गार्डियन अखबार के ग्लेन ग्रीनवैल्ड और लॉरा पोइट्रास को बताया, “कोई भी विश्लेषक किसी भी समय किसी को भी निशाना बना सकता है. हालांकि सभी विश्लेषकों के पास ये क्षमता नहीं है लेकिन मैं अपनी डेस्क पर बैठकर किसी के भी निजी वार्तालाप को जान सकता हूं.”
ब्रितानी अखबार गार्डियन ने खबर प्रकाशित की थी कि अमेरिकी राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा एजेंसी बड़े पैमाने पर क्लिक करें फोन और इंटरनेट की निगरानी कर रही है.
अखबार के अनुसार अमेरिकी खुफिया एजेंसी इस कार्यक्रम के माध्यम से लोगों के निजी वीडियो, तस्वीरें और ईमेल तक निकाल लेती है ताकि विशिष्ट लोगों पर नजर रखी जा सके.
बाद में अमरीका की राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा एजेंसी के निदेशक क्लिक करें जेम्स क्लैपर ने स्वीकार किया था कि सरकार इंटरनेट कंपनियों से उपभोक्ताओं की बातचीत के रिकॉर्ड प्राप्त करती है लेकिन उन्होंने कहा कि सूचना प्राप्त करने की नीति का लक्ष्य केवल गैर अमेरिकी लोगों के बारे में जानकारी लेना है.

अभिव्यक्ति की आज़ादी

गार्डियन अखबार के अनुसार जब एडवर्ड से पूछा गया कि उन्हें क्या लगता है, उनके साथ अब क्या होगा तो उनका जवाब था 'कुछ भी अच्छा नहीं.’
एडवर्ड ने कहा कि वह हॉन्ग कॉन्ग इसलिए गए क्योंकि वहाँ अभिव्यक्ति की आज़ादी है.
गौरतलब है कि अमरीकी राष्ट्रपति बराक ओबामा ने इस कार्यक्रम का बचाव करते हुए कहा था कि उनके प्रशासन ने सुरक्षा और गोपनीयता के बीच सही संतुलन बनाए रखा है.
राष्ट्रपति ओबामा ने कहा था कि एनएसए कार्यक्रम को मंजूरी अमरीकी संसद ने दी और संसद की खुफिया समितियां और गुप्त जासूसी की अदालतें इस कार्यक्रम की लगातार निगरानी करते हैं.

इंटरनेट कंपनियों ने इंकार किया है कि उन्होंने अमरीकी सरकार को अपने सर्वर तक पहुंचने की इजाज़त दी

राष्ट्रपति ओबामा ने कहा कि जब उन्होंने राष्ट्रपति की जिम्मेदारी उठाई थी तब दोनों कार्यक्रमों के बारे में काफी संदेह होते थे लेकिन उनकी जाँच और अधिक सुरक्षा के बाद उन्होंने फैसला किया कि यह स्वीकार्य है.
गौरतलब है कि अमरीकी अखबार वॉशिंगटन पोस्ट ने खबर दी थी कि अमरीकी खुफिया एजेंसियां इंटरनेट की नौ बड़ी कंपनियों के सर्वर से उपयोगकर्ताओं के बारे में सीधे जानकारी प्राप्त कर रही हैं. इन कंपनियों में फेसबुक, यूट्यूब, स्काइप, एप्पल, पॉल टॉक, गूगल, माइक्रोसॉफ्ट और याहू भी शामिल हैं.

कंपनियों का इंकार

हालांकि इन सभी कंपनियों ने इस बात से इंकार किया था कि उन्होंने अपने सर्वर तक अमरीकी सरकार की पहुंच सुनिश्चित की थी.
कहा जा रहा है कि क्लिक करें प्रिज़्म के जरिए एनएसए और एफबीआई ने ईमेल्स, वेब चैट और दूसरे संचार माध्यमों तक अपनी पहुंच बनाई.
प्रिज़्म की स्थापना साल 2007 में दूसरे देशों के लोगों के बारे में गहराई से जानकारी लेने के मकसद से की गई थी.
इन खबरों के बाद वर्ल्डवाइड वेब यानी डब्ल्यू डब्ल्यू डब्ल्यू के निर्माता सर टिम बरनर्ज़ ने प्रिज़्म कार्यक्रम पर नाराजगी व्यक्त करते हुए कहा था कि अमेरिकी सरकार की ओर से यह कदम बुनियादी मानवाधिकारों का उल्लंघन है.
उन्होंने इंटरनेट उपयोगकर्ताओं से कहा कि वह व्यक्तिगत रूप में इस मामले पर आवाज उठाएँ और विरोध करें.
दूसरी ओर फेसबुक के निर्माता मार्क ज़करबर्ग और गूगल के मालिक लैरी पेज ने अमेरिका खुफिया एजेंसी को उपभोक्ता जानकारी देने से इनकार किया था.
इससे पहले एप्पल और याहू भी किसी भी सरकारी एजेंसी को अपने सर्वर तक सीधी पहुँच देने के आरोप से इनकार कर चुके हैं.

Data Source Provided From : From बीबीसी हिन्दी

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

मोदी ने दिया कांग्रेस मुक्त भारत का नारा

गुजरात के मुख्यमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी 2014 चुनाव अभियान समिति के अध्यक्ष घोषित

रविवार, 9 जून, 2013 को 19:09 IST तक के समाचार

गोवा में हुई भारतीय जनता पार्टी की कार्यकारिणी में पार्टी अध्यक्ष राजनाथ सिंह ने रविवार को गुजरात के मुख्यमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी को 2014 चुनाव अभियान समिति का अध्यक्ष घोषित कर दिया.

घोषणा के कुछ देर बाद नरेंद्र मोदी ने ट्विटर पर लिखा, "वरिष्ठ नेताओं ने मुझमें विश्वास जताया है. हम कांग्रेस मुक्त भारत निर्माण बनाने में कोई कसर बाकी नहीं छोड़ेंगे. आपके समर्थन और आशीर्वाद के लिए धन्यवाद."

'कांग्रेस मुक्त भारत'

मोदी बोले, " जो दिल्ली में बैठे हैं उन पर दिन-रात भ्रष्टाचार के आरोप क्यों लगते है. वे करप्शन प्रूफ हो चुके हैं, उनको कोई असर ही नहीं होता. वे विज्ञापन देते हैं कि भारत निर्माण पर हक़ है मेरा पर लोग कहते हैं कि भारत निर्माण पर शक है मेरा. कांग्रेस मुक्त भारत हमारा सपना होना चाहिए."
इससे पहले राजनाथ सिंह ने गोवा में दोपहर को बेहद संक्षिप्त बयान में कहा, "मैं आपको महत्वपूर्ण जानकारी देना चाहता हूँ. हर राजनीतिक पार्टी चुनाव को अपने लिए बड़ी चुनौती मानती है. क्लिक करें भारतीय जनता पार्टी भी आगामी लोक सभा चुनाव को बड़ी चुनौती मानकर चल रही है. पूरे चुनावी अभियान को ध्यान में रखते हुए मैने गुजरात के मुख्यमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी को चुनाव अभियान समिति का अध्यक्ष घोषित किया है."
क्लिक करें मोदी का जीवन परिचय
राजनाथ सिंह ने ये भी कहा कि जो कुछ भी हुआ है सबकी सहमति के आधार पर हुआ है. हालांकि घोषणा के वक़्त क्लिक करें मोदी ख़ुद मौजूद नहीं थे. घोषणा के वक़्त राजनाथ सिंह के साथ मंच पर सुषमा स्वराज और अरुण जेटली मौजूद थे.
लेकिन अपने बयान के तुरंत बाद राजनाथ सिंह उठकर चले गए और पत्रकारों के सवाल नहीं लिए. बाद में कई कार्यकर्ता मोदी के नाम के नारे लगाते हुए नज़र आए.

बधाईयों का तांता

"वरिष्ठ नेताओं ने मुझमें विश्वास जताया है. हम कांग्रेस मुक्त भारत निर्माण बनाने में कोई कसर बाकी नहीं छोड़ेंगे. मैने आडवाणी जी से फोन पर बात की. उन्होंने मुझे अपना आशीर्वाद दिया. उनका आशीर्वाद पाकर मैं सम्मानित महसूस कर रहा हूँ."

नरेंद्र मोदी

पिछले दो-तीन दिनों से ही अटकलों का बाज़ार गर्म था कि नरेंद्र मोदी को गोवा में चुनाव अभियान समिति का अध्यक्ष बनाया जा सकता है. लेकिन इस कार्यकारिणी में पार्टी के वरिष्ठ नेता लालकृष्ण आडवाणी समेत कई नेता नहीं पहुँचे तो अंदरूणी खींचतान की ख़बरो को भी हवा मिलने लगी.
नरेंद्र मोदी को नया रोल दिए जाने के बाद मध्यप्रदेश के मुख्यमंत्री शिवराज सिंह चौहान ने भी अपनी प्रतिक्रिया दी.
गोवा में पत्रकारों से बातचीत में उनका कहना था, "मुझे यकीन है कि इस फैसले का लाभ न सिर्फ भाजपा को मिलेगा बल्कि पूरे देश को मिलेगा. आडवाणी जी का आशिर्वाद सबके साथ हैं चाहे वो मोदी हों या दूसरे नेता. हम पूरा प्रयास करेंगे कि मिलकर काम करके भाजपा के नेतृत्व में 2014 में हमारी सरकार बने."
शिवराज सिंह चौहान ने टिवटर पर भी मोदी को बधाई दी है. कुछ दिन पहले ही लालकृष्ण आडवाणी ने मोदी के बजाए मध्य प्रदेश के मुख्यमंत्री शिवराज सिंह चौहान की तारीफ़ों के पुल बाँध दिए थे.
जब शिवराज सिंह चौहान से आडवाणी के बारे में पूछा गया तो उन्होंने कहा कि ये सब मीडिया की बनाई बातें हैं.
पार्टी कार्यकारिणी से आडवाणी के अलावा उमा भारती और यशवंत सिन्हा जैसे नेताओं ने भी दूरी बनाए रखी.

Data Source Provided From : From बीबीसी हिन्दी

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program

Breaking News From America

Warning!!!

For those who use internet for Chatting , Social sites and mail servers...

You Know Our privacy is destroyed...?

Imagine if your sensitive private data will Leaked or some one will black-mail you for it through those data which one you think are protected from gmail, facebook ,yahoo , aol ...etc.

Published: June 6, 2013

Through a top-secret program authorized by federal judges working under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the U.S. intelligence community can gain access to the servers of nine Internet companies for a wide range of digital data. Documents describing the previously undisclosed program, obtained by The Washington Post, show the breadth of U.S. electronic surveillance capabilities in the wake of a widely publicized controversy over warrantless wiretapping of U.S. domestic telephone communications in 2005. These slides, annotated by The Washington Post, represent a selection from the overall document, and certain portions are redacted. Read related article.

Introducing the program

A slide briefing analysts at the National Security Agency about the program touts its effectiveness and features the logos of the companies involved.

The program is called PRISM, after the prisms used to split light, which is used to carry information on fiber-optic cables.

This note indicates that the program is the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports.

The seal of
Special Source Operations, the NSA term for alliances with trusted U.S. companies.

Monitoring a target's communication

This diagram shows how the bulk of the world’s electronic communications move through companies based in the United States.

Providers and data

The PRISM program collects a wide range of data from the nine companies, although the details vary by provider.

Participating providers

This slide shows when each company joined the program, with Microsoft being the first, on Sept. 11, 2007, and Apple the most recent, in October 2012.

Data Source Provided From : From washingtonpost.com

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

1 comment:

Zinavo-Web Design | Web Development | SEO | Mobile Apps | ERP/CRM27 April 2019 at 06:56
Thanks for your great information, the contents are quiet interesting.I will be waiting for your next post. Web Designing Company in Bangalore | Web Design Company in Bangalore | Website Designing Company in Bangalore
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

	United States Army portal
	Biography portal
	Information technology portal

Pages

KOSULLA INDIA LTD

Tuesday, 11 June 2013

India angry at U.S. cyber spying

New Delhi.

The British newspaper The Guardian says that the U.S. 'Boundles Infarmet' in March this year by 97 billion worldwide computer network information is collected. Information gathered from his arch enemy Iran to the United States there are approximately 14 billion had been collected information.

The second nearly 13.5 billion from Pakistan's information was collected. In the case of India in fifth place. India has raised nearly 6.3 billion Infarmet information.

In Hindi

अमेरिकी साइबर जासूसी पर भड़का भारत

Data Source Provided From : From dainik jagran

By: -Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal -(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

US spy leaker Edward Snowden 'missing' in Hong Kong

Related Stories

“Start Quote

US media response

Major US security leaks

More on This Story

Related Stories

In Hindi:

______

होटल से गायब हुए एडवर्ड स्नोडेन

संबंधित समाचार

टॉपिक

आपराधिक मामला

प्रत्यर्पण की संभावना

संबंधित समाचार

Data Source Provided From : From bbc hindi ,uk

By: -Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal -(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

हांगकांग में छिपा सीआईए की पोल खोल कर मोस्‍ट वांटेड बना एडवर्ड

Data Source Provided From : From Denik Bhaskar

By: -Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal -(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

आडवाणी ने भाजपा के पद छोड़े, पार्टी में संकट

संबंधित समाचार

'पत्र को इस्तीफ़ा माना जाए'

राजनाथ के घर बैठक, आडवाणी संकट पर चर्चा

संबंधित समाचार

टॉपिक

सुषमा स्वराज, नेता विपक्ष

राम माधव, आरएसएस

राजनाथ सिंह, बीजेपी अध्यक्ष

कांग्रेस की प्रतिक्रिया

महेश तवासे, एनसीपी

शरद यादव, जेडीयू

सुखबीर सिंह बादल, पंजाब के मुख्यमंत्री और अकाली दल के नेता

Data Source Provided From : From bbc hindi

By: -Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal -(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

'I am not afraid, because this is the choice I've made'

'You can't wait around for someone else to act'

A matter of principle

Data Source Provided From : From Guardian

By: -Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal -(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Barack Obama defends US surveillance tactics

Related Stories

Analysis

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY

More on This Story

Related Stories

Data Source Provided From : From bbc uk

By: -Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal -(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

US confirms Verizon phone records collection

Related Stories

Analysis

The court order

More on This Story

Related Stories

Data Source Provided From : From bbc uk

By: -Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal -(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

Profile: Edward Snowden

Related Stories

More on This Story

Related Stories

Data Source Provided From : From bbc uk

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd

- Bhupesh Kumar Mandal
-(kosullaindialtd.blogspot.com)

By:
-Kosulla India Ltd