Just Two Words From Apple On The NSA's iPhone Hacking Show How The Tech Community Now Hates The NSA

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-anger-on-the-nsa-iphone-hacking-2013-12

If Walmart or McDonald's began describing the Obama Administration as an unconstitutional threat to the privacy of its customers, it would be front page/holy-cow news.

But that's what is happening in Silicon Valley right now, with America's biggest tech companies.

The most interesting two words in Apple's official statement today on the news that the NSA can put spyware on 100% of Apple's products, including the iPhone, are these: "malicious hackers."

The company said it was unaware of the NSA's hacking program, called "DROPOUTJEEP," and that it was working to end the breach. But note that Apple's statement went out of its way to portray the U.S. government as a security threat:

We will continue to use our resources to stay ahead of malicious hackers and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who’s behind them.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-anger-on-the-nsa-iphone-hacking-2013-12#ixzz2p9aDuPjD

[bemildred]

1. I've been saying that since June.

The NSA is being run by amoral, criminal thieves and voyeurs. They think they are a law unto themselves, "The King can do no wrong" bullshit. Kings do plenty wrong. Kings are often fools.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. If an intelligence agency pulled a coup of the US government, how would we know?

I mean, it's not like they'd roll tanks up onto the white house lawn. It could come in the form of a phone call, or a single in-person meeting.

[Titonwan]

28. Good point

Something makes me think they've already had a nice chat with Obama.

[OnyxCollie]

29. The coup already occurred.

The NSA gathered info on Democratic politicians that it would turn over to the FBI and US Attorneys, resulting in investigations and prosecutions, operating under "parallel construction," which would occur during close elections.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT’S 2002 MEMORANDUM

On March 6, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding new procedures to apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It proposed significant changes to FISA and allowed overlapping between intelligence officers and law enforcement officers:

Prior to the USA Patriot Act, FISA could be used only for the "primary purpose" of obtaining "foreign intelligence information." The term "foreign intelligence information" was and is defined to include information that is necessary, or relevant, to the ability of the United States to protect against foreign threats to national security, such as attack, sabotage, terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e)(1). Under the primary purpose standard, the government could have a significant law enforcement purpose for using FISA, but only if it was subordinate to a primary foreign intelligence purpose. The USA Patriot Act allows FISA to be used for "a significant purpose," rather than the primary purpose, of obtaining foreign intelligence information. Thus, it allows FISA to be used primarily for a law enforcement purpose, as long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose remains. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(7)(B), 1823(a)(7)(B).

The Act also expressly authorizes intelligence officers who are using FISA to "consult" with federal law enforcement officers to "coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against" foreign threats to national security. Under this authority, intelligence and law enforcement officers may exchange a full range of information and advice concerning such efforts in FI or FCI investigations, including information and advice designed to preserve or enhance the possibility of a criminal prosecution. The USA Patriot Act provides that such consultation between intelligence and law enforcement officers "shall not" preclude the government's certification of a significant foreign intelligence purpose or the issuance of a FISA warrant. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(k), 1825(k).


These procedures were changed or rejected by the FISA court and its opinion was publicly released in August 2002.

In spite of the long-accepted, constitutionally sound, independence-preserving method of appointing interim U.S. Attorneys, the appointment process was radically changed with the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006. Removed was the interbranch appointment from the district court; the Attorney General could now make interim U.S. Attorney appointments. Also eliminated was the 120 day period that interim U.S. Attorneys could stay in office before a district court could appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to fill the vacancy. Interim U.S. Attorneys could now remain in office indefinitely, or until the President appointed a U.S. Attorney to the district. Interim U.S. Attorney appointments bypassed Senate confirmation, leaving the determination of qualification to the Justice Department.

The insertion of this new clause into the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act went unnoticed. Senators were at a loss to explain how the clause made its way into the bill. It was later determined that the Justice Department had requested Brett Tolman to insert the clause into the bill (Kiel, 2007). At the time the clause was inserted Mr. Tolman was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is a member. Sen. Specter responded to inquiries about his involvement with the clause by saying, “I do not slip things in” (Kiel, 2007, p. 1). According to Sen. Specter, the principal reason for the change was to resolve “separation of power issues” (Kiel, 2007, p. 2). The Senate voted to repeal the clause in February 2007 (P.L. 110-34, 2007). At the time of this writing, Mr. Tolman is a U.S. Attorney for the state of Utah.

~snip~

A report from Professors Emeritus Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan of the University of Missouri and Illinois State University respectively, shows that of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. “U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops” (Shields & Cragan, 2007, p. 1).

Criminal defense lawyers demand access to secret DEA evidence
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/08/criminal-defense-lawyers-demand-access-to-secret-dea-evidence/

In interviews, at least a dozen current or former agents said they used “parallel construction,” often by pretending that an investigation began with what appeared to be a routine traffic stop, when the true origin was actually a tip from SOD.

Defense lawyers said that by hiding the existence of the information, the government is violating a defendant’s constitutional right to view potentially exculpatory evidence that suggests witness bias, entrapment or innocence.

“It certainly can’t be that the agents can make up a ‘parallel construction,’ a made-up tale, in court documents, testimony before the grand jury or a judge, without disclosure to a court,” said Jim Wyda, the federal public defender in Maryland, in an email.

“This is going to result in a lot of litigation, for a long time.”

"Parallel construction" is really intelligence laundering
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425612

The government calls the practice "parallel construction," but deciphering their double speak, the practice should really be known as "intelligence laundering." This deception and dishonesty raises a host of serious legal problems.

~snip~

Taken together, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense and challenge the government's case. But this intelligence laundering deprives defendants of these important constitutional protections. It makes it harder for prosecutors to comply with their ethical obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose any exculpatory or favorable evidence to the defense—an obligation that extends to disclosing evidence bearing on the reliability of a government witness. Hiding the source of information used by the government to initiate an investigation or make an arrest means defendants are deprived of the opportunity to challenge the accuracy or veracity of the government's investigation, let alone seek out favorable evidence in the government's possession.

The third major legal problem is that the practice suggests DEA agents are misleading the courts. Wiretaps, search warrants, and other forms of surveillance authorizations require law enforcement to go to a judge and lay out the facts that support the request. The court's function is to scrutinize the facts to determine the appropriate legal standard has been met based on truthful, reliable evidence. So, for example, if the government is using evidence gathered from an informant to support its request for a search warrant, it has to establish to the court that the informant is reliable and trustworthy so that the court can be convinced there is probable cause to support the search. But when law enforcement omits integral facts—like the source of a tip used to make an arrest—the court is deprived of the opportunity to fulfill its traditional role and searches are signed off without the full knowledge of the court.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering

The NSA-DEA police state tango
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/singleton/

On the other hand, this is a genuinely sinister turn of events with a whiff of science-fiction nightmare, one that has sounded loud alarm bells for many people in the mainstream legal world. Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law professor who spent 18 years as a federal judge and cannot be accused of being a radical, told Reuters she finds the DEA story more troubling than anything in Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. It’s the first clear evidence that the “special rules” and disregard for constitutional law that have characterized the hunt for so-called terrorists have crept into the domestic criminal justice system on a significant scale. “It sounds like they are phonying up investigations,” she said. Maybe this is how a police state comes to America: Not with a bang, but with a parallel construction.

The NSA operates under the purview of the Department of Defense. The current Secretary of Defense is former Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel. What does Hagel have to do with a coup? He was one of the authors of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the law that brought unverifiable electronic voting machines using secret, proprietary software. Hagel also has business and financial ties with ES&S.

Diebold's Political Machine
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/03/diebolds-political-machine 

While Diebold has received the most attention, it actually isn't the biggest maker of computerized election machines. That honor goes to Omaha-based ES&S, and its Republican roots may be even stronger than Diebold's. 

The firm, which is privately held, began as a company called Data Mark, which was founded in the early 1980s by Bob and Todd Urosevich. In 1984, brothers William and Robert Ahmanson bought a 68 percent stake in Data Mark, and changed the company's name to American Information Services (AIS). Then, in 1987, McCarthy & Co, an Omaha investment group, acquired a minority share in AIS. 

In 1992, investment banker Chuck Hagel, president of McCarthy & Co, became chairman of AIS. Hagel, who had been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 1993, was again on the list of likely GOP contenders heading into the 1996 contest. In January of 1995, while still chairman of ES&S, Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald that he would likely make a decision by mid-March of 1995. On March 15, according to a letter provided by Hagel's Senate staff, he resigned from the AIS board, noting that he intended to announce his candidacy. A few days later, he did just that. 

A little less than eight months after steppind down as director of AIS, Hagel surprised national pundits and defied early polls by defeating Benjamin Nelson, the state's popular former governor. It was Hagel's first try for public office. Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS probably tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in the 1996 vote, although Nelson never drew attention to the connection. Hagel won again in 2002, by a far healthier margin. That vote is still angrily disputed by Hagel's Democratic opponent, Charlie Matulka, who did try to make Hagel's ties to ES&S an issue in the race and who asked that state elections officials conduct a hand recount of the vote. That request was rebuffed, because Hagel's margin of victory was so large. 

As might be expected, Hagel has been generously supported by his investment partners at McCarthy & Co. -- since he first ran, Hagel has received about $15,000 in campaign contributions from McCarthy & Co. executives. And Hagel still owns more than $1 million in stock in McCarthy & Co., which still owns a quarter of ES&S.

The other authors of HAVA are former Republican congressman, Bob Ney,

Ney Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101300169.html 

Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) pleaded guilty yesterday to corruption charges arising from the influence-peddling investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, becoming the first elected official to fall in a scandal that may damage his party's chances in next month's elections. 

Ney, 52, emerged from a month of alcoholism treatment to appear in federal court in Washington, where he admitted performing official acts for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, expensive meals, luxury travel and skybox sports tickets. Ney also admitted taking thousands of dollars in gambling chips from an international businessman who sought his help with the State Department. 

~snip~ 

Ney made no statement to the court, but afterward he issued a written statement saying he was "ashamed" that his long career in public service has ended this way. 

"I never acted to enrich myself or get things I shouldn't, but over time, I allowed myself to get too comfortable with the way things have been done in Washington D.C. for too long," Ney said. "I accepted things I shouldn't have with the result that Jack Abramoff used my name to advance his own secret schemes of fraud and theft in way I could never have imagined."

former Democratic Senator, Chris "Friend of Angelo" Dodd, who ran for President (and did worse than Kucinich),

Countrywide Gave Special Attention To Lawmakers 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061303738_pf.html 

The Portfolio investigation alleges that favorable loans also were extended to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.); President Bush's former housing secretary, Alphonso Jackson; former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke; and former Health and Human Services secretary Donna E. Shalala. 

~snip~ 

Holbrooke, Shalala and Jackson did not return phone calls seeking comment. But Conrad and Dodd, both of whom have committee jurisdictions that affect Countrywide, yesterday dismissed the notion that they received favorable deals, and they said they did not know that the FOA loan category existed. 

~snip~ 

"As a United States senator, I would never ask or expect to be treated differently than anyone else refinancing their home," Dodd said in a statement. 

~snip~ 

Dodd borrowed $506,000 at 4.25 percent to refinance his Washington townhouse and $275,042 at 4.5 percent to refinance a home in East Haddam, Conn., according to Portfolio. Quoting internal documents, the magazine said Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan and a quarter of a point, or $700, on the second.

(Dodd is now a lobbyist for Hollywood and is lobbying for laws that allow censorship of the Internet.)

Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist 
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/14490613193/chris-dodd-breaking-promise-not-to-become-lobbyist-just-weeks-after-leaving-senate-joining-mpaa-as-top-lobbyist.shtml 

One of the worst kept secrets in DC and Hollywood over the last month or so is the news that former Connecticut Senator and failed Presidential candidate Chris Dodd is set to become the MPAA's new boss (salary: $1.2 million per year). This came after a failed attempt to get former Senator (and failed presidential candidate) Bob Kerrey to take the role last year. 

Assuming Dodd takes the role, he's already proving himself to be perfect for a Hollywood job, because it makes him a blatant liar. Last summer, Dodd insisted that he would not become a lobbyist. He made this abundantly clear. When asked what he would do, he was explicit: "No lobbying, no lobbying." Yeah, apparently a million dollar plus salary makes you a liar barely a month after leaving the job. Of course, technically, Dodd is also barred from becoming a lobbyist for two years after leaving the Senate, but there's a kind of *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* trick that Dodd and others use to technically claim they're not lobbyists while merely running one of the bigger and most high profile lobbying organizations around. 

Of course, it'll also be interesting to see if Dodd sells his soul and changes some of his professed principles. For example, he was a big supporter of "net neutrality." But the MPAA has come out against net neutrality, claiming it would hamper its efforts to "fight piracy." He was also against ISP data retention, which the MPAA has supported (again as a way to fight piracy). On copyright he was somewhat non-committal, but did talk about how fair use rights are important. I imagine that will disappear once he takes the role formerly filled by Jack Valenti -- the man who once declared that fair use doesn't exist.

and former Republican Representative and House Majority Whip, Tom "Dancing with the Stars" DeLay. DeLay, who had been under indictment for five years, was convicted in 2010 for conspiracy and money laundering to get Republicans elected, and recently had his conviction overturned, all without spending a single day in prison.

Texas Appeals Court Overturns Tom DeLay's Money Laundering Conviction
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-appeals-court-overturns-tom-delay-s-money-laundering-conviction 

A Texas Court of Appeals overturned former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's (R-TX) conviction of money laundering on Thursday, finding the trial court's decision "legally insufficient to sustain DeLay’s convictions," KHOU reported. 

A court convicted and sentenced DeLay to three years in prison in 2010 for allegedly scheming to improperly influence Texas elections by helping to illegally steer corporate money to candidates in 2002. DeLay has since been waging a lenghty appeals process, and was acquitted Thursday. 

Read the appeals court opinion here. 

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=eb407752-d6ce-4bd3-9180-7fe57e473ffc&coa=coa03&DT=Opinion&MediaID=ecfe9eca-d8d0-48c2-b525-de00c57af7bf

Sounds like a successful coup to me.

[Logical]

2. Without Snowden, this discussion would not be happening at the same level! n-t

[loudsue]

3. Very true. Snowden has done us all a favor by making the discussion

front & center.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. actually without the publicity all of these tech companies were fine with the arrangement.

I do not believe for one second that "we had no idea". Well, they had no idea that somebody like Snowden was going to pop up and shine a light on their dirty underwear, but they knew about the rest of the shit.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

5. light is the best disinfectant

[2banon]

9. I agree. It's almost hilarious to see them all act like: huh? wtf? I dinnit know! n/t

[Demeter]

6. Yeah, I liked that turn of phrase

it's a kind of in joke, an "in" insult, if you will.

[hootinholler]

7. BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!

Continue to stay ahead



I have a TRS-80 in the attic, I think it might be the last secure machine

[RC]

26. I have a pair of Apple ]['s an Apple //e

If I can find the 9600 baud modem, I'll be back in business. Assuming anyone else can find their modems too.

I wonder how this would work?
Apple //e Emulator for Windows
http://applewin.berlios.de/

[LiberalArkie]

8. Every time Apple tries to prevent jail breaking the iPhones

people holler about it being closed and all. But they have to prevent jail breaking to keep out the NSA and others. OS X has in place a system to wall off the personal info so that programs that are added to it have to ask for permission to get to mail, contacts etc. This is what has been done on the iPhone since 2009.

The NSA is costing US businesses billions in sales, maybe trillions. Just look at Boeing sales to south America. Cisco and Juniper sales are taking big hits over seas.

American tech will soon be the big losers the rest of the world.

Innovators in the US are starting to move away from Cisco and other American providers because they worry about their new ideas will be stolen by the NSA and sold to their competition.

We have a problem.

[2banon]

10. Interesting.. i'm not clear on what jail breaking means, although I've seen the term before..

curious as to how all of this will unfold.. maybe the folks at the chaos convention will brainstorm on more than just encryption methods and other work-arounds.. maybe they'll come with systems for phone and computers that are user friendly for low tech people like me and most people i know. ?? or maybe that's impossible on it's face. maybe low tech users are stuck with what we have going now.

[benEzra]

14. Jailbreaking is the process of hacking/rooting your own phone

in order to give you as the end user more control over the device than Apple grants you out of the box (i.e., escaping from Apple's "jail" or walled garden). From the factory, iPhones are simply not very configurable. Heck, without jailbreaking, you can't even change your root password from the factory default, if I'm not mistaken.

Case in point, my originally-AT&T iPhone 3GS has a 5-column dock, a 5-column display, a swipe menu for brightness/wifi/data/Bluetooth/rotation/SSH/location without having to go through the submenus in the Settings app, a Unix terminal, direct folder access from my desktop PC (like an Android phone), and is on a $50/mo T-Mobile prepay plan. I couldn't do any of those things had I not jailbroken it, but the NSA could still have gotten in, just as they can get into the newer iPhones I *can't* jailbreak.

FWIW, Apple's anti-jailbreaking measures don't keep the NSA out, just your average end user. And jailbreaking almost always requires physical access to the phone, whereas from a surveillance standpoint the primary worry would be remote third-party access, I'd think.

[2banon]

15. Thank you! much to chew on here, I appreciate this information..

and Happy 2014!

[joshcryer]

18. If some kid hacker can jailbreak an iPhone you know the NSA can do it.

So that's a fairly crummy excuse for making the system so closed.

[gulliver]

11. More lossage due to the Snowden phenomenon.

Of course US tech companies have to sound off about the NSA. A lot of US tech revenue and jobs have been lost thanks to Snowden. All for nothing. We all know the NSA's job is to spy. We know it will keep on doing so, as will its counterparts in other countries. And all of that spying activity is going to reach into the products of every tech company, US-based or not. That is what spies do.

Unfortunately, Snowden provided a reason for foreign tech companies to gain a sales edge on US tech companies. All tech companies worldwide have exposure to spying activity, but Snowden made the US products look bad. He continues to do so. Now, when a German company wants to buy secure technology they may think twice about buying US, despite that fact that non-US alternatives are likely, if anything, less secure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. If "we all know", why is the NSA trying to keep it secret?

And, why is what Snowden revealed about what "we all know" worthy of being a crime?

[klook]

17. That's the cognitive dissonance of the NoBigDealers.

It can't simultaneously be true that the NSA spying is no big deal AND the whistleblowers are treasonous bastards endangering American lives.

[grahamhgreen]

32. +1

[Savannahmann]

13. Here is an idea for American Tech Companies

Make products that protect your customers. Oh wait, those companies that do are shut down by the Government. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/9/secure-email-service-used-snowden-shuts-down/

So if foreign products don't have those vulnerabilities, enforced by secret courts, and threats of jail time for disobedience, why would someone choose to buy an American product? Why should they?

What we have learned is that there is little, including writing all your secrets on a piece of paper and sticking it to the window of your local grocery store, that is less secure than American Tech.

So if the Government is interested in American Companies making products and services to sell, perhaps they should be less interested in activating webcams in teenaged girls rooms while claiming that it's done to protect America from Terrorists. In other words, throw the Government perverts in jail, and tell the world that we do respect the 4th Amendment, and make it a crime punished by life in prison without the possibility of parole for anyone to intercept or view your data.

We'll never do that of course, we're busy fighting terror or something.

Merica!

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Seriously, they can't do a damn thing about it.

If they do, people in suits show up, tell them they aren't allowed to discuss the visit, or they go to jail, and they must do XYZ or go to jail.

Lavabit.com

Done.
Hell, major US companies are still asking permission from the government to discuss with their customers what sort of surveillance they may have been subjected to. ASKING PERMISSION

Why? because if they don't, under previous instructions, if they do, they go to jail.

[yodermon]

16. Why are you making this about Snowden? Fuck Snowden. If it wasn't him, it would've been someone ELSE

revealing this shit eventually. Try blaming the NSA/GCHQ who are actually PERPETUATING this bullshit and thus tarnishing the brands of the US companies whose products have been hacked.

Feel free to bash Snowden if it makes you feel better, though.

[Hissyspit]

19. Jeez...

That's all you've got now?

[Romulox]

20. "You've cost me a lot of sales, what with your talk of 'privacy' and 'freedom'"!

[freshwest]

30. Makes sense. Follow the money. More profits for companies abroad. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

33. Funny, I see it as a gain.

[berni_mccoy]

22. The Quote From Apple is Cut and Inaccurate.

Full quote from NY Times:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/apple-says-it-is-unaware-of-n-s-a-iphone-hack-program/?_r=0

“We have been unaware of this alleged N.S.A. program targeting our products,” Apple said in a statement. ”Our team is continuously working to make our products even more secure, and we make it easy for customers to keep their software up to date with the latest advancements.”

The company added, “Whenever we hear about attempts to undermine Apple’s industry-leading security, we thoroughly investigate and take appropriate steps to protect our customers. We will continue to use our resources to stay ahead of malicious hackers and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who’s behind them.”

I highly doubt that Apple would call the NSA "malicious hackers". This term was taken out of context. It could be read the other way, in that, Apple is saying they protect against malicious hackers and not sources like the NSA, even though I doubt that's what they meant either.

They are simply responding to this latest news by addressing their customers in saying that their products and services are continuously being protected against threats and to stay ahead of what malicious hackers do. That is not what you are saying.

Business insider is inferring anger on Apple's part that is not there. If anything, I'd guess that Apple is embarrassed that the NSA could infiltrate iOS so completely, though I won't infer what anyone feels at Apple.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. If the NSA can do it, anyone can.

That's the problem.

[berni_mccoy]

27. I suspect NSA had inside information

iOS is not open source like Mac OS X is, and the reason is Apple does not want third parties integrating at a low-level.

While what you say is true, I suspect it is extremely unlikely. The number of exploits against iOS is much lower than any other platform (not just because it's not open source, but because of the controlled channel).

[Blue_Tires]

25. Just a PR offensive from Apple

who like all the other megacorps are praying to the supply-side gods that the public remains ignorant of how complicit they've been this whole time....

I don't let anyone skate on this....

[Coyotl]

31. K&R