Sprint Throttled Skype Without Telling Anyone… And Nobody Seems To Care Much

from the slippery-slope dept

Last month we pointed to research out of Northeastern University that showed U.S. wireless video performance was thoroughly mediocre thanks in large part to arbitrary carrier throttling. The study, spearheaded by researcher David Choffnes, found that this carrier throttling usually had absolutely nothing to do with congestion. Instead, much of it was driven by carriers trying to impose arbitrary limits on your connection, then charge you more money to avoid it. For example, Verizon now throttles all video on its “unlimited” wireless data connections to 480p (around 1.5 Mbps), unless you pay Verizon for a more expensive plan.

Choffnes is tracking ISP network management by using crowdsourced data from his Wehe app. More recently Choffnes released an updated report that continues to show that carriers arbitrarily throttle video and select apps. But his report and data also found that Sprint (and its prepaid subsidiary Boost Mobile) routinely throttles Skype performance on its networks… without telling consumers about it. The throttling was discovered in 34 percent of 1,968 full tests run between January 18 and October 15 of this year, note the researchers:

“We found a significant number of instances of Sprint throttling our Skype tests. This is interesting because Skype?s telephony service can be construed as directly competing with the telephony service provided by Sprint…We asked Sprint to comment on our findings. Their reply was: “Sprint does not single out Skype or any individual content provider in this way.” Our test results indicate otherwise, particularly for video content providers where we were able to confirm targeted throttling of Wehe tests.”

On its surface, Sprint throttling Skype a third of a the time isn’t the end of the world. But as is often the case with net neutrality, it’s the precedent that matters. Sprint has already tinkered with throttling video, music, and games unless users were willing to pay more money, something nobody in the Obama administration so much as blinked at — even with net neutrality rules intact.

Now, post-repeal, Sprint is throttling a service that could be directly construed as competing with Sprint’s own offerings, something Choffnes told me should be raising alarm bells for anybody interested in keeping the internet competitive and relatively neutral:

“In a neutral network, all of these services can compete on a level playing field to offer a product that attracts the most users,? he said. ?When an Internet provider targets a service for throttling, the playing field can tilt in favor of one service over another.”

?This is particularly problematic if the Internet provider’s service is favored, because they can use this advantage to drive users away from competing products and to ones belong to the Internet provider,? Choffnes added. ?And because the competition is limited by the Internet service they are given, in some cases there may nothing they can do to regain equal footing.”

Sprint, for its part, justly flatly denied to me and other reporters that this was even happening, though Choffnes stands by his data. Here’s the point where an objective regulator would come in, investigate the issue, and then punish companies if necessary. Of course in the Ajit Pai era that’s simply not going to happen. Under the FCC’s 2015 rules, ISPs had to be transparent about what they were doing so users knew what kind of connection they were buying. With those rules now dead, the FCC has effectively made transparency a largely voluntary affair that ISPs can ignore at their leisure.

That’s where Choffnes comes in. He’s trying to at least hold ISPs accountable by using crowdsourced data to clarify what ISPs are up to. But with the news of Sprint throttling Skype coming and going without a single comment from anybody in a position to actually do anything about it, it’s not clear if knowing alone is going to be enough.

Again, Sprint throttling Skype for a third of its users certainly isn’t the end of the world. But it remains a precedent you should be worried about. ISPs are desperately trying to be on their best behavior right now ahead of next February’s net neutrality lawsuits against the FCC. They don’t want to add any fuel to the fire (well, aside from that Verizon throttling California firefighters for no reason thing). But should the FCC and ISPs win their court battle, you’re going to see a lot more “creative” efforts to impose costly new barriers to access, and less and less transparency with the end user about what’s happening.

Filed Under: competition, fcc, net neutrality, throttling, voice
Companies: skype, sprint

Belgian Court Fines Microsoft For Failing To Comply With Its Impossible Order

from the we-said-JUMP dept

You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might fine… a company for being unable to deliver on the impossible.

Belgium has fined Skype €30,000 for failing to comply with a court request to intercept users’ communications, something Skype claims was technically impossible at the time of the request.

According to Het Belang van Limburg, a Dutch-language newspaper in Belgium, the fine was delivered by the court in Mechelen because Skype had failed, in September 2012, to deliver up anything more than metadata in response to an investigation into a criminal organisation.

The court, failing to understand anything but its power to order people around, demanded that Skype turn over communications. Skype turned over the only thing it could actually obtain, explaining that its architecture didn’t support the interception of calls. No dice. That only made the court angry.

The court was no more happy to have pointed out to it that Microsoft didn’t actually fall under its jurisdiction. It maintains no data centers in Belgium, nor does it have anyone employed there. Microsoft suggested the court work with governments of countries where it actually maintains a presence and utilize their mutual assistance treaties.

None of these facts appear to have mattered. The court says Microsoft should be able to do the impossible because the law is the law.

Het Belang van Limburg quoted prosecutor Tim Hoogenbemt as saying: “Skype offers services in our country, so it needs to know the laws. And therefore know that the court may ask interception measures.”

Sometimes the law isn’t the law, though. Microsoft pointed out the law doesn’t actually apply to it since it’s a software provider, rather than a service provider.

And sometimes the law is an ass. The fine is still in place despite arguments of impossibility, illegality, and “not applicable” to the contrary. It may not stick. Microsoft is appealing the decision.

This isn’t the first time Belgian courts have overreached. Back in 2009, Belgian officials blew off perfectly workable mutual assistance treaties, demanding user information directly from Yahoo’s US headquarters. Yahoo, like Microsoft, pointed out that it has no data centers or employees in Belgium. Instead of rethinking its approach, the government took the company to criminal court. That court, like this one, decided to fine the company for doing the exact thing it was supposed to be doing: protecting its users’ privacy.

And that’s not the limit of Belgian exceptionalism. A “royal decree” from the Belgian government (which bypasses the Parliamentary approval process needed for actual legislation) forces ISPs to collect and store tons of info on their subscribers, including how many emails are sent, VoIP use (hello, Skype!), call metadata, etc. — just in case law enforcement might need it. When it was pointed out this decree violated the EU’s privacy directive, the government shrugged and called the agreement it signed “obsolete.”

Given these decisions, it’s not even useful advice to suggest just not doing business in Belgium. It quite obviously doesn’t matter to the courts where the data or communications they’re seeking are actually located.

Filed Under: belgium, intercept, phone calls, skype, warrant
Companies: microsoft, skype

Moroccan Telcos Block Free VoIP Calls To Protect Their Bottom Lines

from the VoIP-providers-lacking-proper-license-to-print-money-for-telcos dept

American telcos don’t have a monopoly on monopolies. Foreign telcos can be just as inappropriately (and pehaps illegally) protective of their turf profits.

Moroccans and expatriates have taken their fury against the blocking of voice over IP (VoIP) calls to social networks, and have called for the boycott of the North African country’s telecommunication operators that implemented the ban.

There are now growing calls for Moroccan king’s intervention to put pressure on the firms to restore internet call services.

As is befitting monopolistic ventures backed by regulatory capture, protectionist policies were stated as an excuse for the blocking of free VoIP calls.

Morocco’s Telecommunications Regulatory National Agency (ANRT), which was behind the ban, justified its decision by stating that none of the services providing voice over IP (VoIP) or other “free internet calls” had the required licenses.

The country’s citizens have seen it for what it is, though: a completely transparent attempt to ensure the companies can still charge for as many international calls as possible. This led to immediate and forceful backlash, albeit one mostly felt by the companies’ social media flacks and their metrics.

The three telecom operators have lost more than 100,000 “like” mentions within 48 hours of the launch of #OPEUnlike campaign by Marouane Lamharzi Alaoui on Facebook.

Alaoui created a webpage that allows the tracking in real time of the number of people who have unsubscribed from Facebook pages of the three operators.

Rumors are now floating that the telcos are fighting social media fire with social media fire by purchasing “likes.” When the battlefield is Facebook and internet points are at stake, I guess it doesn’t really matter whether the “likes” are real or fake, as neither is going to put more money in the telcos’ pockets. Real accounts aren’t going to make any more expensive international calls than fake accounts, so there’s nothing more at stake here than first impressions from the uninitiated.

Possibly of more use is this strategy:

For some, the ban is illegal, arguing that ANRT has within its powers the ability to “propose” laws, but not to enact them.

“In its 2004 decision subjecting VoIP to a prior license, ANRT wanted to apply a legal regime and therefore exceeded its powers. The decision can be challenged before the administrative court of Rabat by filing for an annulment for abuse of power,” wrote Alaoui.

In addition, a local web awards program has been targeted with a boycott. The withdrawal of several candidates has led to the withdrawal of telecom Inwi as sponsor. A crowdfunding effort has been put into place to allow the committee behind the awards to continue without its telco sponsor.

Whether or not this will be a success is unknown. It’s pretty difficult for internet backlash and Facebook “like” attrition to outweigh an oligopoly backed by a very friendly regulatory agency and overseen by a king.

Filed Under: anrt, blocking, competition, morocco, telcos, voip
Companies: skype

Microsoft Agrees To Hand Over Skype User Data To Russian Police

from the laying-down-for-its-users dept

Microsoft’s defense of its very close relationship with national intelligence agencies has historically been that it “complies with applicable laws.” However, its “compliance” in the past seemed to have exceeded the compliance of other companies, as it offered the NSA pre-encryption access to most of its popular services as well as “working closely” with the agency to allow it to grab both audio and video from Skype, which it acquired in 2011.

The company has taken a tougher stance in recent weeks, releasing statements that decry the agency’s overreach and promise better protection of users’ information and data. But given this recent development, it appears the tough talk was saber-rattling for the public’s benefit. Microsoft is still very compliant when it comes to working with intelligence agencies.

Microsoft Corporation that owns the Internet call service Skype is ready to keep in store its Russian users’ negotiations, correspondence and data exchange during six months and share it with the Russian police, if necessary, Microsoft’s press office told Itar-Tass.
Microsoft thus confirmed its commitment to work in full compliance with the Russian law, the way it does in all countries of its operations. If any new law is adopted, the company will comply with it as well, the press office said.

Well, I suppose there are none of the usual constitutional concerns that might (theoretically) limit Microsoft’s obliging attitude towards the Russian’s counter-terrorism efforts. Every Russian Skype user will have their data stored for six months and handed over to the police whenever they ask for it. If the Russian agencies decide they need more data, or want to extend the length of time the data is stored, Microsoft has already agreed to honor any future law targeting its Skype users.

The pending legislation covers a whole lot of ground, data-wise.

According to the document, an individual or a legal entity that has organised users’ contacts on the Internet are to store information about the reception, transmission, delivery and processing of voice information, texts, images, sounds or any other actions in the process of information dissemination and/or data exchange, for six months following such actions and share the mentioned information with the state authorities, if requested.

Any service that has user accounts (which would be close to 100% of them) will be required to hold tons of user data and metadata for six months at the behest of Russian authorities. This isn’t that much different than the NSA’s data hauls, except that some of its programs don’t specifically ask for permission before grabbing data and the collections are stored onsite by the agency.

Details are presumably still being hashed out, but Microsoft has already sworn its allegiance to the Russian law in whatever form it takes after being pushed through the legislative process. Not exactly a heartening indicator of Microsoft’s new-found willingness to stand up to government overreach.

Filed Under: data, russia, skype
Companies: microsoft, skype

The Latest Leaks Contradict Claims Made In Microsoft's Own 'Law Enforcement Requests Report'

from the protecting-your-privacy-except-for-these-large-exceptions dept

The Guardian’s recent revelations of Microsoft’s very cozy “teamwork” with the NSA and FBI rendered many of the software giant’s statements on privacy completely hollow. Among the details leaked was the surprising amount of access to Skype Microsoft provided to these agencies.

One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14 July 2012. “The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete ‘picture’,” it says.

Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011.

According to the NSA documents, work had begun on smoothly integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010, but it was not until 4 February 2011 that the company was served with a directive to comply signed by the attorney general.

The NSA was able to start tasking Skype communications the following day, and collection began on 6 February. “Feedback indicated that a collected Skype call was very clear and the metadata looked complete,” the document stated, praising the co-operation between NSA teams and the FBI. “Collaborative teamwork was the key to the successful addition of another provider to the Prism system.”

This document seems to contradict Microsoft’s statement on Skype in March of this year in its 2012 Law Enforcement Requests Report.

Skype received 4,713 requests from law enforcement. Those requests impacted 15,409 accounts or other identifiers, such as a PSTN number. Skype produced no content in response to these requests, but did provide non-content data, such as a SkypeID, name, email account, billing information and call detail records if a user subscribed to the Skype In/Online service, which connects to a telephone number.

[All emphasis in the original.]

Perhaps “producing content” means something different to Microsoft than it does the NSA, or the general public for that matter. The leaked documents state “Skype video production has roughly tripled since July 2012” with the agent noting they’ve been collecting audio all along.

No doubt this discrepancy will be greeted with a semantic discussion, involving different ways of interpreting words like “producing” or “content.” Perhaps Microsoft feels providing direct access isn’t the same as “producing content.” Or maybe Microsoft means it just hasn’t produced content for law enforcement, and anything given to the FBI falls outside of its definition of that term. But if the FBI’s requests are considered to be outside the definition of “law enforcement,” Microsoft confuses the issue early in its report by referring to content disclosed to governments.

It’s insightful, I believe, to look at the governments to whom customer content was disclosed. Of the 1,558 disclosures of customer content, more than 99 percent were in response to lawful warrants from courts in the United States. In fact, there were only 14 disclosures of customer content to governments outside the United States. These were to governments in Brazil, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand.

Obviously, Microsoft isn’t allowed to discuss much of its work with the NSA and the FBI, but the disclosure here makes it sound as if it’s safeguarding the privacy of Skype users, when in reality it’s simply holding the door open for the feds.

Filed Under: law enforcement, nsa surveillance, skype, surveillance
Companies: microsoft, skype

Latest Leak Shows Microsoft Handed The NSA And FBI Unencrypted Access To Outlook, SkyDrive And Skype

from the <strike>MS</strike>-US-Internet-Explorer-10,-now-available-for-download! dept

Microsoft has painted a picture that its relationship with the NSA and FBI isn’t a cozy one, but one based on forced compliance. The company has recently been taking shots at Google with its “Scroogled” campaign, claiming it kept users’ data more secure. Then news surfaced that Microsoft was providing intelligence agencies with zero-day exploits for deployment by the agencies before getting around to patching them, leading to questions as to its expressed concern for its customers.

The latest leak released by the Guardian paints the company as a willing “team player” working closely with the FBI and NSA to allow unfettered access to the data of its customers.

Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users’ communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company’s own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.

The documents show that:

• Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal;

• The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on Outlook.com, including Hotmail;

• The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide;

• Microsoft also worked with the FBI’s Data Intercept Unit to “understand” potential issues with a feature in Outlook.com that allows users to create email aliases;

• Skype, which was bought by Microsoft in October 2011, worked with intelligence agencies last year to allow Prism to collect video of conversations as well as audio;

• Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a “team sport”.

This damaging set of documents indicates that Microsoft talks a pretty good game when it comes to privacy, but the protection it actually offers is less than skin deep.

Microsoft’s latest marketing campaign, launched in April, emphasizes its commitment to privacy with the slogan: “Your privacy is our priority.”

Similarly, Skype’s privacy policy states: “Skype is committed to respecting your privacy and the confidentiality of your personal data, traffic data and communications content.”

Microsoft’s actions say otherwise. Skype alone gives the NSA and FBI access to over 600 million users worldwide despite Skype’s earlier claims that these calls couldn’t be tapped.

Microsoft has responded to this leak with a statement claiming its actions are above-board and completely legal. The NSA released a statement as well, claiming, as Microsoft does, that everything detailed is fully compliant with applicable laws. As usual, the NSA statement makes reference to “strict oversight” and “careful monitoring,” empty phrases its deployed before that are ultimately meaningless without any corresponding transparency.

Again, speaking to the “legality” of these actions is nothing more than self-serving rhetoric. As has been expressed before, the real scandal isn’t that large-scale surveillance is happening. It’s that it’s legal. Secret courts issuing secret interpretations that companies like Microsoft are compelled to comply with. Microsoft may say it “rejects” demands that it doesn’t deem “valid,” but does anyone not think these rejections aren’t simply overridden?

There are ways to comply with government requests which don’t take the form of working closely with intelligence agencies to undercut the same privacy you’re telling the public you’re so interested in protecting. (Maybe ask Twitter for some advice…) Giving intelligence carte blanche access to data pre-encryption doesn’t sound like the actions of a company that regularly challenges government requests. It sounds more like the compliance of a company who’d rather not jeopardize OS sales and support to one of its biggest customers.

Filed Under: encryption, nsa surveillance, pre-encryption access, prism, surveillance
Companies: microsoft, skype

More Details On PRISM Revealed; Twitter Deserves Kudos For Refusing To Give In

from the details-details-details dept

Late on Friday, the NY Times released the most detailed explanation to date of the PRISM system that was revealed on Thursday, claiming that nine of the biggest tech and internet companies were working with the NSA to give them “direct access” to servers. The explanation explains how both the original story was substantially true, as were the “denials,” though the denials were (as predicted) a bit of doublespeak. Today, the Guardian revealed another slide from the presentation it has, which clarifies some more details.

Basically, it appears those companies all agreed to make it easier for the NSA to access data that was required to be handed over under an approved FISA Court warrant, and they appear to do this by setting up their own servers where they put that information (and just that information). From the NY Times report:

But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said.

The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data.

This is significantly less worrisome than the original Washington Post report, which suggested full real-time access to all servers. That’s not quite what has happened, according to this report. This involves cases where the companies really do need to hand over this information. We can disagree with whether or not the FISA Court should issue these warrants, but at some point there may be information that the companies do need to hand over to the government. As for the Guardian, they published the following slide:

<img src=”https://i.imgur.com/QobV8zD.jpg” width=560″/> As you can see, it notes multiple programs where they can get data. The programs on top are the ones such as the NSA servers installed at telcos to collect all traffic running through them, which have been revealed before. The program on the bottom is PRISM, which clearly states: “collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers,” followed by the already known list. That certainly confirms the “direct access” claim from the original WaPo report, but it could also be true in conjunction with the NY Times report, if you look at it as the companies setting up special servers where they place information they’re ordered to hand over via FISA court orders. The “denials” from the companies are also substantially true, as they mean that the NSA isn’t getting direct access to all their servers, but rather the ones set up for handing over this information.

The real question should be about what information the FISA Court is approving warrants over:

FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 percent from the year before.

In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a tech company’s headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed software on the company’s server and remained at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop.

In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time transmission of data, which companies send digitally.

Note just how broad some of those searches may be. Staying around for weeks to download logs? We’re not talking about narrowly focused searches here.

Of course, what’s now also come out is that, despite Google and Microsoft releasing transparency reports about government requests for data, they don’t include FISA requests because of the gag orders on them. It’s only recently that both Google and Microsoft were able to include “range” numbers for how many national security letter requests they get. One hopes they’re pushing to be transparent on FISA requests as well.

The article makes it clear that Twitter was alone among the companies in refusing to join this program. That does not mean that Twitter does not hand over data to the government when receiving a legitimate FISA order. I’m sure it does. But it does mean that they have not set up a special system to make it easy for the government to just log in and get the data requested. Some people have suggested that the government has little need for Twitter to join the program since nearly all Twitter information is public, but that’s not true. There is still plenty of important information that might be hidden, including IP addresses, email addresses, location information and direct messages that the NSA would likely want. Besides, YouTube is a part of the program, and most of its data is similarly “public.”

This is not, by the way, the first time that we’ve seen Twitter stand up and fight for a user’s rights against a government request for data. Over two years ago, we pointed out that Twitter, alone among tech companies, fought back when a court ordered it to hand over user info. Twitter sought, and eventually got, permission to tell the user, and allow that user to try to fight back. It later came out that, as part of that same investigation, the government also had requested information from Google and Sonic.net, with Sonic.net fighting back and losing. It never became clear whether Google fought back.

Separately, however, Chris Soghoian has noted that an “unnamed company” fought back and lost against a FISA court order… and that, according to the PowerPoint presentation, Google “joined” PRISM just a few months later. It is possible that Google fought joining the program, and then only did so after losing in court. That said, Google’s most recent denial insists that “the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box.” Perhaps they don’t consider a special server set up for lawfully required information a “drop box,” but others certainly might.

In the end, it appears that the initial Washington Post report was overblown in that it suggested direct access to all servers, rather than specific servers, set up to provide information that was required. That said, it is still true that the FISA Court appears to issue a fair number of secret orders for information from a variety of technology companies, some of them quite broad, and that many of the biggest tech companies have set up systems to make it easier to give the NSA/FBI and others access to that info — though, they are often required by law to provide that information. The real outrage remains that all of this is happening in complete secrecy, where there is little real oversight to stop this from being abused. As we noted just a few weeks ago, the FISA Court has become a rubber stamp, rejecting no requests at all in the past two years.

Given the revelations of the past week, the public (and our representatives) need to demand much more transparency and oversight concerning these surveillance programs.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, direct access, fisa, fisa court, nsa, oversight, privacy, servers, surveillance
Companies: aol, apple, dropbox, facebook, google, microsoft, paltalk, skype, twitter, yahoo, youtube

Tech Companies Deny Letting NSA Have Realtime Access To Their Servers, But Choose Their Words Carefully

from the worth-watching dept

We’ve already talked about James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence choosing weasel words to pretend they’re saying that they weren’t spying on Americans when they really were, and now some are arguing that the tech companies are doing the same exact thing. All of the tech companies listed have been denying their involvement, but again, the words are being chosen carefully, and there’s a reasonable argument that they’re denying certain specific claims while really side-stepping the bigger issue.

Comparing denials from tech companies, a clear pattern emerges: Apple denied ever hearing of the program and notes they “do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers and any agency requesting customer data must get a court order;” Facebook claimed they “do not provide any government organisation with direct access to Facebook servers;” Google said it “does not have a ‘back door’ for the government to access private user data”; And Yahoo said they “do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.” Most also note that they only release user information as the law compels them to.

But the PRISM program’s reported access to data and the now repeatedly confirmed widespread access to phone records and other types of digital data appears to be almost exactly what the 2008 Protect America Act (PAA) allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts to compel tech companies to do — as many warned around the time of its passage. If tech companies are not providing direct access to their servers but are cooperating with the PRISM program, that leaves at least one other option: Companies are providing intelligence agencies with copies of their data.

Note the fine distinction. Giving the NSA a clone of their data wouldn’t be giving them “access to our servers.” It would be giving copies to the NSA… and then the NSA could “access” its own servers. And you were wondering why the NSA needed so much space in Utah. If they’re basically running a replica of every major big tech company datacenter, it suddenly makes a bit more sense. Of course, at this point there’s no evidence that this is necessarily the case — and some are insisting that the denials are legit, and that the Washington Post’s story is not entirely accurate. But… the wording here is extra careful, and the government’s report really does seem to indicate that these companies are deeply involved.

By the way, if you’d like to dig in on annotating the various tech companies’ denials, someone put them all up at RapGenius, the site for annotating text (not just rap songs).

Filed Under: nsa, surveillance, tech companies
Companies: aol, apple, google, microsoft, skype, yahoo

Oh, And One More Thing: NSA Directly Accessing Information From Google, Facebook, Skype, Apple And More

from the not-a-good-week-for-the-nsa dept

Obviously, the Verizon/NSA situation was merely a small view into just how much spying the NSA is doing on everyone. And it seems to be spurring further leaks and disclosures. The latest, from the Washington Post, is that the NSA has direct data mining capabilities into the data held by nine of the biggest internet/tech companies:

The technology companies, which participate knowingly in PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted significant traffic during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing Syrian civil war.

Dropbox , the cloud storage and synchronization service, is described as “coming soon.”

This program, like the constant surveillance of phone records, began in 2007, though other programs predated it. They claim that they’re not collecting all data, but it’s not clear that makes a real difference:

The PRISM program is not a dragnet, exactly. From inside a company’s data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes, but under current rules the agency does not try to collect it all.

Analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade key in “selectors,” or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness.” That is not a very stringent test. Training materials obtained by the Post instruct new analysts to submit accidentally collected U.S. content for a quarterly report, “but it’s nothing to worry about.”

Even when the system works just as advertised, with no American singled out for targeting, the NSA routinely collects a great deal of American content.

I expect we’ll be seeing more such revelations before long.

Filed Under: data, data mining, nsa, privacy, spying
Companies: aol, apple, dropbox, facebook, google, microsoft, paltalk, skype, yahoo